Re: is it true mp3 use less battery on portables than wma?
- From: "V Green" <vanceg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:38:59 -0700
"john" <-> wrote in message news:%23ptpnd7UHHA.4028@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Why do you doubt me? I have read it on many manuals. My manual says ittoo..
creative nano.. 1 gband
but since you have to see to believe:
http://dapreview.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.265
Please take notice at this part exactly:
"obviously, comparing battery life when using MP3's compared to WMA-DRM
files does not prove that DRM has a negative effect in that area, as MP3
WMA are completely different audio codecs, with WMA known to require morewho
processing power to decode. In fact, digital audio player manufacturers
list battery life for plain MP3's and WMA's routinely list WMA batterylife
at 4 hours below what they state for MP3 playback (for example, theOlympus
m:robe MR100 states 12 hours of playback with MP3 and 8 with WMA), whichis
exactly the difference CNet's test found between MP3 and WMA-DRM. For a
comparison to actually be valid or useful, WMA's of the same bitrate with
and without DRM would need to be examined. So that's what we did."
Don't get all defensive on me. Why SHOULD I believe what you
say, when you don't have any supporting data?
So it takes more battery power to play WMA's. I guess the
tradeoff then becomes one of battery life vs. storage space.
A 96k WMA sounds MUCH better to me than a 96K MP3.
You would need to up the bitrate of the MP3 and use more
storage space to get the same (apparent) audio quality.
And before we start the MP3 vs. WMA sound quality war
YET AGAIN, I care ONLY what it sounds like to ME. I
don't transcode music to please anybody but myself. So please
don't start in with that crap.
What this really boils down to is:
Am I willing to sacrifice battery life for the ability to get
more stuff on the same SD card?
Damn right I am.
YMMV, and that's fine by me. YOU need to transcode to
standards that please YOU.
a
"V Green" <vanceg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ONY1gO7UHHA.4756@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"john" <-> wrote in message
news:%23BXrA86UHHA.3980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
neil smith is an MVP, and like most of them he is uninformed and talks
youlot
without saying nothing.
all MP3 Players that are WMA compatibe do use more power to play WMA
compared to mp3 because they use more chip power to decode the file.
Proof, please. Place link to that info here.
Always use MP3 if possible, and be aware that if you make WMA be sure
answersselect/
the option for it to not have DRM limitations for this may cause you
problems in the future if you want to use the same files on other
machines
computers/ players
"abdul h" <abdulh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6A2E115C-DB44-41AF-8F6B-07B5F800CF2F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
i want microsoft staff answer my question.i want reasons of your
too.thanks :)
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: WMP Error C00D11B1 on Vista when playing from network drive
- Next by Date: Re: duplicate albums on my hard drive
- Previous by thread: Re: is it true mp3 use less battery on portables than wma?
- Next by thread: Re: is it true mp3 use less battery on portables than wma?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
