1st Gen Hi-MD portables battery life (lackluster!)...

[MDX-400]

I apologise if this has been discussed/posted already but I didn't see anything immediately in the news section or here so I thought I'd make a thread

Anyway just looked at the battery life specs (links posted on the .org main page--looks like they were just put up today) and I thought they were a little lackluster.

I guess we're back to the drawing board a bit with the new format... The times, even for the "old MD" modes aren't too great in comparison with older units. The Li-Ion actually doesn't look too bad though, in comparison with the NH900... Given the NH900 is using the lowly NH-10WM, but even boosting them (by 40% multiplication) to 14WM levels they still look below what the NH1 is rated for.

Simply comparing the NH1 and NH900 it seems the NH1 hasn't suffered at all in terms of battery life like the N10/E10 did (due to a very thin Li-Ion).

But comparing the NH900 to the N910, well, lets just say you don't want to do it--it really isn't a comparison! (Note that it doesn't really specify if the SP/LP2/LP4 times are from std MDs, std. MDs upformatted, or from true Hi-MD media...)

Well these are still not overly "official" as of yet it doesn't look like so they may be revised to be lower/higher--I don't know.

But all our praises of the high battery life on MD units (compared to MP3 players) might have to take a second seat for a while; at least until Sony (and perhaps other companies) start figuring out ways to conserve power on Hi-MD.

Anyhow, thoughts anyone?

[KJ_Palmer]

Yes, it's a little disappointing after what we've been used to, say, 50+ hours playback on the old-MD machines. Sony'll probably manage to 'bump' those figures up a bit by release date, but it still won't be a huge selling point .

I was thinking of getting an NH900, as well as the NH700 I have on order, but I might belay that now and what for the 2nd/3rd generation. The 700 will do as a home recorder in the meantime.

I'm also interested to see what output levels the Sony Euro-models will have. 5mW will be fine, 4mW just at a pinch...

[DuncanEK3]

Excuse my newbness, but has any company ever made larger capacity aftermarket batteries for md players?

I must say I'm disapointed by the figures...

[MDX-400]

Excuse my newbness, but has any company ever made larger capacity aftermarket batteries for md players?  

I must say I'm disapointed by the figures...

Well not really.... Any unit that uses an AA battery--well you're free to use another AA. The newer units with the NH-WM7AA have an NiMH AA but it is a "rip-off" NiMH cell because it is actually a AAA battery inside of an AA shell. We know this because of the low-for-an-AA capacity of just 700mAh. Upgrading this to a real NiMH AA of 2100mAh or so will give you about 3 times (!) the play/record times those units are rated for on the rechargeable. (Also it would be around the same time as the units are rated for using a "dry" (alkaline) AA cell instead.)

The NH700/NHF800 are among those that use this battery. Really what they did was replace the NC-WM7AA (NiCd) AA with an NiMH but kept the capacity the same by using an AAA NiMH cell internally. To say the least this is pure cheapness by Sony. A real AA cell would probably cost the same or be a few cents more per battery.

One part of it is that using a 2000mAh+ NiMH AA cell would have put the play/record times over the next unit up the NH900.

They also cheaped up the battery on the NH900 though, using a 40% lower capacity NH-10WM gumstick; compared to the previously used NH-14WM. (In fact the REALLY old NH-9WM was even higher capacity than the 10WM! The 9WM hit a maximum of 1200mAh before the 14WM took its place.) So simply using Sony's own 14WM will net you better times in any unit that comes with a 10WM (this includes the NH900 and the older std. MD NF810 and N710).

Really once again Sony is trying to save a few cents per unit here and they shouldn't be considering the already low battery life these units seem to have.

As for other aftermarket batteries the answer is not really. The prismatic cell (in the Sony size) has pretty much topped out now at ~1400mAh. (A gumstick's technical name is "prismatic" BTW). Its been like this for years, it hasn't increased for the longest time. GP offers a "1450mAh" battery but that's just 50mA and its just a rating, a Sony "1400mAh" could just as easily have an actual capacity of 1450mAh as well. The extra 50mA, either way, isn't going to give you anything really.

Sony's kind of screwing this one up x2 First of all the battery life is lower due to the new format/hardware (unavoidable) but secondly they are still trying to cheap-up the batteries used (using lower capacity gumsticks than they used to use before and using low-cap NiMH AAs instead of std. ones). This makes for a doubling effect of decrease in capacity, surely Sony should have tried to mitigate it by using higer cap batteries, but they didn't

[Christopher]

Production wise, this will save them thousands of dollars, though. If I was a head honcho and knew of this, I'd probably do the same thing. This is a total risk product, and probably future generations will have the better batteries.

I am content with the specs. They aren't as attractive with previous efforts, but this is only the beginning. Plus, we know the truth and will attain higher battery life with more efficent batteries. Our only option? Spread the word to make sure everyone else knows.

Great information, MDX. :happy:

[MDX-400]

Production wise, this will save them thousands of dollars, though. If I was a head honcho and knew of this, I'd probably do the same thing. This is a total risk product, and probably future generations will have the better batteries.

Hmm, perhaps but I don't know that I would if I were "head honcho" One because you're going to be able to publish higher figures for battery life which will attract more buyers. Two because, well, there are lots of things you can cut costs on but you've got to draw the line somewhere and/or pick cost-cutting moves very carefully. IMO if they already knew one thing was going to be bad, why make it even worse? I understand the savings "multiply" but really thousands of dollars on millions of units--I don't think that is really a big deal...

Edit: Another note about cost-cutting. If Sony's willing to cut costs on batteries which worsen battery times and make the units a little less appealing, who knows what else they've cut costs on, inside the players? I'm afraid to ask! Is one of these units going to be the next N1??? (To the N1s defence I just think it was poor design in that case and not a problem with part value/cost; but still, cheaping up internal parts might make for a short-lived unit.)

I am content with the specs.

Great information, MDX.  :happy:

Really? You're "content with the specs"? You're kidding me right? :rasp: I don't really care that much about battery life myself, but really were taking a step back to like R90 battery times it looks like--that is a big step back. I'm not saying it could have been prevented just they could have very easily made it look a little better using decent batteries.

Can't complain too much though, you're right... Its new technology and offers a lot of features and benefits previously only dreamed of.

[Andy]

I think battery life will suffer a bit with Hi-MD just because in order to read a part of the disc, it has to write first (if you look at the diagrams of the new technology, there are 3 layers of the disc, and two of them are used basically as a window, while the 3rd one is the one where actual data is stored). So, it is doing a fair bit more in order to read stuff.

I'm not sure how likely it is (or useful), but perhaps in future generations there might be multiple lasers used, one per layer. The idea being that rather than having to refocus or whatever, they can all just be much simpler (and possibly only running 1/3rd of the time).

[BJ]

So battery wise...does this mean we can't laugh at the iPod users any more? :cool:

This one's an ouch (and my head is still spinning from reading the chart), but already these machines do more than I thought they would. I'm still in it for an NH900. Besides, I still remember being happy my Sharp MD-MS702 could play 6 WHOLE HOURS on one charge!! I guess it's nothing new.

[greenmachine]

I'd like to add my own observations for 1st gen Hi-MD battery life with higher capacity replacements after some testing. I've used a no-name 2300 mAh Ni-Mh AA rechargeable in a MZ-NH700, 1 GB discs in continuous REC mode from mic-in and came to following approximate results:

-PCM ---- 8 1/2 h (5 1/2 discs)

-Hi-SP - 16 hours (2 discs)

-Hi-LP - 17 hours (1/2 disc)

I'd say these times are quite impressive from a single AA battery, considering the bulk other recordists are carrying around to get a comparable performance with their rather power-hungry equipment.

The battery indicator showed all 4 dots until about half the total recording time, followed by 3 dots until about 1 hour before shut-off, where 2 dots were displayed. 1 dot from about 1/2 hour before to shut-off. This may vary depending on the battery type and condition. It's advisible to stop and save the recording as soon as it reaches 2 dots, with only 1 dot left there might not be enough power left to write the system file.

When reaching the last 3 percent of the disk, there will be increased power consumption - the disk will spin more often than usual for some reason.

Did battery life significantly improve for the 2nd generation recorders?

[toxigenicpoem]

So battery wise...does this mean we can't laugh at the iPod users any more?

No I can laugh @ Ipod users all the time.. Choosing fashion over function.

When reaching the last 3 percent of the disk, there will be increased power consumption - the disk will spin more often than usual for some reason.

Its an inherent function of a disk medium. The outside track is longer then the inside track, therefore you need to spin faster to reach the same write/read speed.

Edited July 20, 2005 by toxigenicpoem

[Sevkatia]

Its an inherent function of a disk medium. The outside track is longer then the inside track, therefore you need to spin faster to reach the same write/read speed.

←

No, actually it's the other way around, the closer it is to the outer edge the lower speed is required to maintain the same data rate. It's called a CLV: Constant linear Velocity.

On the other hand, more frequent disc access when it's almost full may have something to do with the remaining disc space management...

[ROMBUSTERS]

I think battery life will suffer a bit with Hi-MD just because in order to read a part of the disc, it has to write first (if you look at the diagrams of the new technology, there are 3 layers of the disc, and two of them are used basically as a window, while the 3rd one is the one where actual data is stored). So, it is doing a fair bit more in order to read stuff.

I'm not sure how likely it is (or useful), but perhaps in future generations there might be multiple lasers used, one per layer. The idea being that rather than having to refocus or whatever, they can all just be much simpler (and possibly only running 1/3rd of the time).

←

which is why the HiMD 1GB disc playback times are the shortest.

The only difference between HiMD formatted and regular formatted MDs is the error correction employed. Although again this doesn't explain the sharp drop in playback time.