Jump to content

Battery life using Atrac3 352kbps

Rate this topic


sebastianbf

Recommended Posts

Hello guys:

I've noticed that when using atrac 352kbps, battery life decreases significantely in my mzdh10p. So I want to know if anyone has tried a battery life comparison between HI-SP and Atrac3 352kbps in any HI-MD player or recorder. It doesn't matter if it's not an exactly hours vs. hours comparison, just your view of it.

Thanks for your time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello guys:

I've noticed that when using atrac 352kbps, battery life decreases significantely in my mzdh10p. So I want to know if anyone has tried a battery life comparison between HI-SP and Atrac3 352kbps in any HI-MD player or recorder. It doesn't matter if it's not an exactly hours vs. hours comparison, just your view of it.

Thanks for your time

Nothing sinister about this one --it's a very simple explanation.

There's MORE DATA to handle therefore the unit has to do more work, more energy higher battery consumption.

You'll probably (haven't actually measured it but looking at data sizes can guess) get around 10 - 15% less at 352 compared with 256. (On typical MD units - NH1, RH10, NHF 800 etc).

If you use PCM / WAV you'll get less.

If you remember the previous MDLP units when recording / playing back in SP mode gave shorter battery life compared with LP2/LP4 (although a little extra complication here --some extra power is needed for "inline" transcoding).

This is normal behaviour, there's nothing wrong with your unit.

Even at 352 battery life is respectable ( In most MD units).. I use 352 as my standard now. OK Some people say there's no difference between that at 256 but the extra bit rate IMO is well worth it --you don't reduce the playing time of the discs by much and if you need to re-transcode to something else and haven't got the original WAV file the quality at least for the ist generation copy is fine.

Storing on a computer at 352 seems to me the best compromise between storage space (WAV / PCM) and quality.

Of course my observations are for MD units. As I've often pointed out one disadvantage of Hard Disk units is that Hard Disks consume significant power.

So any extra drain such as using larger files (352) will be noticed far more on a Hard Disk unit than on a MD unit.

Cheers

-K

Edited by 1kyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...