WMA might take over, many people prefer wma already. Options

[kwanbis]

qualityequalizer hasn't even responded back ...

[westgroveg]

On portable players with moving parts (CD players, HDD players), the decoding complexity makes nearly no difference on battery consumption.

That's what I've said all along, but everyone disagreed. what gives?

I'm confused here because I have seen quite a few people saying that they get half as much battery life using OGG instead of MP3, is this true?

[rjamorim]

I'm confused here because I have seen quite a few people saying that they get half as much battery life using OGG instead of MP3, is this true?

Depends on the device. On solid state iRiver players, I believe that is very possible, specially since the Vorbis library used by them hasn't been extensively optimized.

[indybrett]

qualityequalizer hasn't even responded back ...

Classic troll behavior (by the original poster).

This post has been edited by indybrett: Mar 2 2005, 17:25

[Jojo]

On portable players with moving parts (CD players, HDD players), the decoding complexity makes nearly no difference on battery consumption.

That's what I've said all along, but everyone disagreed. what gives?

I'm confused here because I have seen quite a few people saying that they get half as much battery life using OGG instead of MP3, is this true?

yes, that's true...ogg sucks even more battery than AAC

[rjamorim]

yes, that's true...ogg sucks even more battery than AAC

Actually, from what I read, Vorbis decoding complexity is about on par with LC AAC.

What sucks more battery than AAC is tremor, since it's nearly not optimized and the AAC decoding libraries have been extensively optimized.

[Gabriel]

Actually, from what I read, Vorbis decoding complexity is about on par with LC AAC.

But memory requirements are higher because of the codebooks. It you do not have much fast memory, you might have to handle frequent loads from your bigger slow memory to your tinny fast memory.

[PaleGreen]

I'm confused here because I have seen quite a few people saying that they get half as much battery life using OGG instead of MP3, is this true?

Depends on the device. On solid state iRiver players, I believe that is very possible, specially since the Vorbis library used by them hasn't been extensively optimized.

My girlfriend's portable MP3 CD player definitely chows down batteries at a faster rate with more "complex" encoding. There's a noticable difference between LAME APS and LAME 128 CBR.

[music_man_mpc]

My girlfriend's portable MP3 CD player definitely chows down batteries at a faster rate with more "complex" encoding. There's a noticable difference between LAME APS and LAME 128 CBR.

That isn't at all what they mean by more "complex". What the other members have been discussing is the complexity of the format, not the size of the files. On non-solid state devices it is well known that bigger files = more HDD/CD access = more battery drain due to the devices internal motors.

[PaleGreen]

My girlfriend's portable MP3 CD player definitely chows down batteries at a faster rate with more "complex" encoding. There's a noticable difference between LAME APS and LAME 128 CBR.

That isn't at all what they mean by more "complex". What the other members have been discussing is the complexity of the format, not the size of the files. On non-solid state devices it is well known that bigger files = more HDD/CD access = more battery drain due to the devices internal motors.

Her CD player is always spinning, regardless of whether the media is an audio CD or one containing MP3's. I therefore think the diminished battery life, at least in this case, is entirely due to the additional CPU load of decoding the larger VBR files.

This may be obvious to most, but I think it's worth commenting on. I've seen too many people fail to consider battery life when deciding how to encode music for their portables.

[atici]

I'd say that's the fault of the player (poor design) and does not have much to do with the codec.

In any case this thread seemed to receive quite some posts. I'd expect it to end up in the Recycle Bin. Or is WMA taking over??

WMA ist Death! OGG ist Savior!

This post has been edited by atici: Mar 2 2005, 23:55

[plunger]

I'll informally test out my Nokia 6230b's music player with ~128kbps AAC files vs. 128kbps MP3s and see how the battery life is. I've started using AAC files very heavily these days and haven't noticed too much a difference (in regards to battery life) on this device.

This post has been edited by plunger: Mar 3 2005, 08:17

[phong]

What sucks more battery than AAC is tremor, since it's nearly not optimized and the AAC decoding libraries have been extensively optimized.

In fact, Rio modified Tremor significantly for the Karma for that very reason - earlier firmwares used standard Tremor and the penalty for playing vorbis was large. Allegedly, it still sucks a fair amount more battery at similar bitrates compared to mp3, but I haven't personally tested it and I don't know how significant the difference is (I've only looked at my battery life with higher bit-rate vorbis compared to the 15-16 hours it is known to last with 128k mp3.)

When I get mine fixed, I may do a test to find out how big a difference we're talking about.

[Lyx]

- Troll -

Besides, get an own avatar instead of stealing it from other members.

Maybe such obvious threads should be closed automatically by mods (after a report has been sent), the thread-starter warned - and, when repeating it, be banned.

- Lyx

[ChristianHJW]

I feel guilty ! My new smartphone is running Windows Mobile Smartphone Edition 2003, and can only play MP3 and WMA. As i dont have a bigger storage card than the original 32 MB coming with the phone right now, i converted my favourite songs to WMA 64 kbps to at least have some music with me ....

[kangaroo]

Some of them here have used words like dirty and all for WMA format
what i say regarding them is that they have not worked on WMA and know's
about WMA.
I am working on WMA and as far as the market is concerned every order
we get includes WMA9 as one of the specs in the PMP segment.
I suggest people to consider WMA coz at 128kbps it provides better compression than MP3.
I think WMA9 is here to stay ......

[rjamorim]

I suggest people to consider WMA coz at 128kbps it provides better compression than MP3.
I think WMA9 is here to stay ......

In-deed

Edit: of course WMA is here to stay, but only because it has all of Microsoft's marketing muscle backing it. If it was backed by a smaller corporation (<cough> Yamaha) or just a group of independent developers, it would be dead already.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Mar 5 2005, 12:38

[guruboolez]

I suggest people to consider WMA coz at 128kbps it provides better compression than MP3.
I think WMA9 is here to stay ......

I also suggest you to consider again this statement, by comparing WMA9 with an optimal MP3 encoder (as lame).
It is true that WMA9 is very competitive against poorer (which are often very fast) mp3 implementations. But good mp3 encoders outperforms WMA at 128 kbps. See Roberto's collective listening tests.

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Mar 5 2005, 12:32

[The Irish Man]

I suggest people to consider WMA coz at 128kbps it provides better compression than MP3
I think WMA9 is here to stay .......

I have some doubts that WMA9 is here to stay, because I don't think it got here in the first place.
I yet to meet anyone who used it.
I can't see Microsoft continue to flog a dead Horse, when It's easier for them to continue selling WMA as better than MP3.

This post has been edited by The Irish Man: Mar 5 2005, 17:29

[Fallen Guru]

Maybe someone should start some kind of awareness campain? None of my less techy-minded friends even know what an audio codec is. Basically they use whatever their download service or media player (that would be WMP or iTunes) shoves down their throats by default.
If they run into some DRM restriction they just think their computer is malfunctioning, which they dismiss with some kind of "nothing to be done, computers are like that" attitude. If something really bugs them they come to me, but I can't crack WMA either... Conclusion: I'm an idiot

[moozooh]

Her CD player is always spinning, regardless of whether the media is an audio CD or one containing MP3's

I don't believe it. Are you sure you're not mistaken? AFAIK, if CD player is capable of decoding an MP3s, it has enough cache to not to spin all the time. Or at least, you must shake it constantly to make it spin without a stop.

[Jojo]

Her CD player is always spinning, regardless of whether the media is an audio CD or one containing MP3's

I don't believe it. Are you sure you're not mistaken? AFAIK, if CD player is capable of decoding an MP3s, it has enough cache to not to spin all the time. Or at least, you must shake it constantly to make it spin without a stop.

yep, the mp3-CD players I've seen so far only spun up every 15 minutes or so...

[qualityequalizer]

From what i heard, comparing the two (I will ABX when i have the time) I could pick out the mp3 very easily (up to 320) from the original while the WMA was nearer to the original.. My personal preference is wma for sound quality. But the DRm thing is a problem..

I am not pushing the wma format just trying to be neutral. Obviously many in this forum think that a few listening tests with people who are not aware of mp3 artifacts will prove anything... I can pick out mp3's quite easily but I am not aware of the wma artifacts *which i am sure do exist - i just don't know what they are*

Anyway, all I wanted was a proper discussion of wma artifcacts and quality vs the other formats - (other then the listening tests which i have seen). Maybe I am new here but i was able to find discussions on mp3, ogg and mpc problems in this board. What about wma? It would be useful, don't you think?


And I don't use wmas much either mainly because of the DRM thing ...

[Busemann]

From what i heard, comparing the two (I will ABX when i have the time) I could pick out the mp3 very easily (up to 320) from the original while the WMA was nearer to the original.. My personal preference is wma for sound quality. But the DRm thing is a problem..

I am not pushing the wma format just trying to be neutral. Obviously many in this forum think that a few listening tests with people who are not aware of mp3 artifacts will prove anything... I can pick out mp3's quite easily but I am not aware of the wma artifacts *which i am sure do exist - i just don't know what they are*

Anyway, all I wanted was a proper discussion of wma artifcacts and quality vs the other formats - (other then the listening tests which i have seen).  Maybe I am new here but i was able to find discussions on mp3, ogg and mpc problems in this board. What about wma? It would be useful, don't you think?


And I don't use wmas much either mainly because of the DRM thing ...

I've seen one proper listening test with 192kbps wma standard (in sound & vision magazine), and they said it was not that much better than iTunes mp3 @192..

In other words, not really great

[music_man_mpc]

From what i heard, comparing the two (I will ABX when i have the time) I could pick out the mp3 very easily (up to 320) from the original while the WMA was nearer to the original.. My personal preference is wma for sound quality. But the DRm thing is a problem..

I am not pushing the wma format just trying to be neutral. Obviously many in this forum think that a few listening tests with people who are not aware of mp3 artifacts will prove anything... I can pick out mp3's quite easily but I am not aware of the wma artifacts *which i am sure do exist - i just don't know what they are*

Anyway, all I wanted was a proper discussion of wma artifcacts and quality vs the other formats - (other then the listening tests which i have seen).  Maybe I am new here but i was able to find discussions on mp3, ogg and mpc problems in this board. What about wma? It would be useful, don't you think?


And I don't use wmas much either mainly because of the DRM thing ...

If you want to be taken seriously at these forums you must first conduct an ABX, or perferrably ABChr, test. Then provide the test results and the sample you used for testing so that others can verify your results.