android
  #1  
Old 10-09-2009, 03:48 PM
Crimson Raven's Avatar
Crimson Raven Crimson Raven is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 191
Default Mp3 kbps battery drain?

Hello, everyone.

Question of the week: How much battery life does certain kbps MP3s cost compared to lower kbps MP3s?

Example: I use a lot of 320kbps MP3s, but was wondering how much longer the battery would hold out if I used, say, 128kbps MP3s, instead.

Thank you.
__________________
It doesn't matter who is wrong and who is right.
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #2  
Old 10-09-2009, 03:53 PM
Yoshi1984's Avatar
Yoshi1984 Yoshi1984 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 79
Default

Personally I doubt the P3's battery is effected by the kbps rate one uses for their music.
And also even if it was, why listen to music at 128kbps? talk about bad music.
I use 256, but i think it's more the DNSE 3.0 and the eq changes that drains the battery more than the kbps rate.
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 10-09-2009, 04:22 PM
Dreamnine Dreamnine is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scotland, EU
Posts: 3,225
Default

I think it's only when you play FLAC files at maybe 800/900 kbps you'll really notice a difference.
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 10-09-2009, 05:08 PM
shinobi00 shinobi00 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 274
Default

theres definitely a difference. Do a battery test and find out. I use my p3 to much to do one. I think it may be 3 or 4 hours. I think 320kbs vbr/cbr is overkill sound wise, and it takes up a lot more space. the mp3 codec has come a long way in the past 1-2 years.
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 10-09-2009, 06:51 PM
Satellite_6's Avatar
Satellite_6 Satellite_6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 871
Default

I don't know about the p3, but higher kbps does make a difference in the battery life of all my DAPs. It's worth it though! most of my mp3's are 320.
__________________
satelliteaudioblog.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 10-10-2009, 10:50 AM
Yoshi1984's Avatar
Yoshi1984 Yoshi1984 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 79
Default

is the quality more noticeable with headphone's rather than earbuds? i think my hearing may not be what it once was listening to loud music :x lol.
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 10-10-2009, 01:01 PM
Satellite_6's Avatar
Satellite_6 Satellite_6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi1984 View Post
is the quality more noticeable with headphone's rather than earbuds? i think my hearing may not be what it once was listening to loud music :x lol.
Do you mean between 256 and 320?

If you are using vbr there is pretty much zero difference between 256 vbr and 320 cbr. The main reason I use 320 is because in LAME 3.98 -v0 is terribly erratic. It ends up anywhere between 220 and 300 kbps, and I want at minimum very close to 256.

If you are using cbr tho any bitrate except 320 sucks w/ mp3.
__________________
satelliteaudioblog.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 10-10-2009, 01:48 PM
Marvin the Martian's Avatar
Marvin the Martian Marvin the Martian is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east central NY state
Posts: 10,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post
Do you mean between 256 and 320?

If you are using vbr there is pretty much zero difference between 256 vbr and 320 cbr. The main reason I use 320 is because in LAME 3.98 -v0 is terribly erratic. It ends up anywhere between 220 and 300 kbps, and I want at minimum very close to 256.

If you are using cbr tho any bitrate except 320 sucks w/ mp3.
You do realize that V0 is "erratic" for a reason, right? If it's below 256 it's because it doesn't need to be 256.

But hey, it's your player's memory to use as you will.
__________________
iPod Touch 5G 32GB, Touch 4G 32GB, Clip Sport 8GB. Rockbox-> Clip Zip 4GB, iPod Nano 2G 4GB, iPod 5.5G 80GB
2012 Nexus 7 32GB, Asus MeMoPad 8 16+64GB, LG Optimus G Pro, Nokia Lumia 900 and Lumia 520
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 10-10-2009, 02:03 PM
Yoshi1984's Avatar
Yoshi1984 Yoshi1984 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 79
Default

How do i know if im using cbr or vbr?
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 10-10-2009, 02:08 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post
If you are using vbr there is pretty much zero difference between 256 vbr and 320 cbr. The main reason I use 320 is because in LAME 3.98 -v0 is terribly erratic. It ends up anywhere between 220 and 300 kbps, and I want at minimum very close to 256.
So you're basically saying you have absolutely no clue what VBR encoding actually means, and what its advantages are?

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....nstant_Bitrate

Here's the important part:

Quote:
In general, however, for most types of input, assuming identical input, identical encoding methods, and sensible targets for VBR quality and bitrate bounds, VBR will almost always produce equal or better perceived-quality results than CBR for files of the same size or average bitrate, and this has been demonstrated in numerous double-blind listening tests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post
If you are using cbr tho any bitrate except 320 sucks w/ mp3.
I would suggest you to ABX-test some files with your own ears before you make such bold claims. Nevertheless, on modern players like the P3 CBR is a complete waste of space, bitrate, and - if not 320k CBR - quality.

To clarify, I'm only talking about the LAME MP3 encoder here. I can't speak for other ones like FhG, Xing, and such, since they're inferior to LAME and I didn't use them in years.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 10-10-2009, 02:26 PM
Satellite_6's Avatar
Satellite_6 Satellite_6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 871
Default

huh? I said 256 vbr is just as good as 320, therefore vbr is superior! Please explain you outburst.

As for the other clam, well I'll try to abx it later or tomorrow if you want.
__________________
satelliteaudioblog.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 10-10-2009, 02:36 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

You said -v0 is "terribly erratic", and you want a minimum bitrate of 256k.... which means you do not understand the idea behind VBR encoding.

That's all I wanted to clarify - especially to other people reading this thread, who might get wrong ideas about VBR/CBR encoding by this post of yours.

You're entitled to use whatever you want on your player, if that's 320k CBR MP3s, so be it - I just want to clarify that not even the creators of the LAME codec (which are behind the Hydrogenaudio article I linked above) would recommend to use 320k CBR MP3 for almost any case.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 10-10-2009, 02:58 PM
JK98 JK98 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,048
Default

How much more battery power does decoding VBR vs CBR mp3 files? If you can get more battery life using 256 kbps CBR than 192 kbps average VBR, even if they sound the same, it might be worth having the larger file sizes of CBR to get longer battery life. Now that storage is cheap, and many people have more storage than they need, even if power savings using CBR is minimal, many might still want to use CBR.
I have seen that mp3 uses much less power to decode than wma at the same bitrate, and that battery life might be around 30% longer using mp3 vs wma. I have no idea about the other formats, although my guess if that they probably use more power to decode than mp3.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 10-10-2009, 03:03 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

As long as nobody does a thorough test on that matter, we will not know if one is easier on the battery than the other. Personally, I very much doubt it makes any difference if you use CBR or VBR LAME - considering the capabilities of modern decoders. WMA of course is a whole other story... but who in their right mind would use that anyways?

Lossless formats should theoretically be easier to decode than lossy ones, since there's less information lost and they should use less processing power to decode than highly compressed lossy files - but that's only in theory as well, I'm not aware of any conclusive tests.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 10-10-2009, 03:36 PM
JK98 JK98 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,048
Default

"WMA of course is a whole other story... but who in their right mind would use that anyways?"

WMA is good at very low bitrates. I was surprised that some lectures at 12 kbps wma sounded so good. I guess that is why many digital voice recorders use WMA rather than mp3.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 10-10-2009, 03:38 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

They use WMA because it's a single license payment for encoder and decoder. It's cheaper. For MP3 recording you have to pay FhG/Thompson extra for the encoder part, next to the decoder.

Anyways, that's way off-topic for this thread already.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 10-10-2009, 04:01 PM
Marvin the Martian's Avatar
Marvin the Martian Marvin the Martian is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east central NY state
Posts: 10,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
As long as nobody does a thorough test on that matter, we will not know if one is easier on the battery than the other. Personally, I very much doubt it makes any difference if you use CBR or VBR LAME - considering the capabilities of modern decoders. WMA of course is a whole other story... but who in their right mind would use that anyways?

Lossless formats should theoretically be easier to decode than lossy ones, since there's less information lost and they should use less processing power to decode than highly compressed lossy files - but that's only in theory as well, I'm not aware of any conclusive tests.
I remember a former SanDisk employee in that forum saying that Vorbis and WMA took more computing power to decode than mp3, but I forget if any percentage amounts were mentioned.

As far as lossless, my only experimentation was with FLAC on my old V1 Clip.....and I got about 8.5 hours runtime as opposed to about 14 with a mix of LAME V0 and some old WMA VBR files. Maybe the size of the files was the culprit.....FLAC at compression level 5, so 700-800kbps?

I haven't used FLAC on a portable since then, between the battery drain on that player, and not being able to hear the difference between it and V0.
__________________
iPod Touch 5G 32GB, Touch 4G 32GB, Clip Sport 8GB. Rockbox-> Clip Zip 4GB, iPod Nano 2G 4GB, iPod 5.5G 80GB
2012 Nexus 7 32GB, Asus MeMoPad 8 16+64GB, LG Optimus G Pro, Nokia Lumia 900 and Lumia 520
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 10-10-2009, 04:04 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

Seems they really didn't optimize FLAC decoding that much... no wonder considering many other amateurish aspects of the Clip firmware.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 10-10-2009, 04:07 PM
Marvin the Martian's Avatar
Marvin the Martian Marvin the Martian is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east central NY state
Posts: 10,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
Seems they really didn't optimize FLAC decoding that much... no wonder considering many other amateurish aspects of the Clip firmware.
Well, they do consider it a value player
__________________
iPod Touch 5G 32GB, Touch 4G 32GB, Clip Sport 8GB. Rockbox-> Clip Zip 4GB, iPod Nano 2G 4GB, iPod 5.5G 80GB
2012 Nexus 7 32GB, Asus MeMoPad 8 16+64GB, LG Optimus G Pro, Nokia Lumia 900 and Lumia 520
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 10-10-2009, 04:13 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

I do regard it an extremely awesome player - but only after Rockbox hit it.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 PM.