Old 02-08-2010, 11:57 AM
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: 10,601

Originally Posted by Jab View Post
actually FLAC is more efficiently decoded and should be easier on the battery than MP3 files.
That varies from player to player. On a Sansa Fuze or CLip, the battery life is decreased by nearly 50% using level 5 FLAC compared to midrate mp3.
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

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Old 02-08-2010, 12:33 PM
bonapardo bonapardo is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4

Been reading a bit more on FLAC levels and it seems I may have been wrong about decompression. Apparently, differences in processing required between levels should be negligible - it's simply the compression which takes longer. This is a little confusing as I've definitely had firmware incompatibilities with higher FLAC levels in the past which seems to indicate there certainly is some kind of difference in decoding the FLAC levels, but it may be that differences in processing power required are negligible even though the decoding itself may vary..?
Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2010, 01:26 PM
Angry Machine's Avatar
Angry Machine Angry Machine is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7

Flac are bigger files with high lossless compression, so the DAC has a lot of work to decode it !

Mp3 is pretty easy to decode, and the lower is the bitrate the greater is the battery life.

JetEffects are needing a lot of power, as high impedance headphones like UM3X.

So I think your battery life is very normal.

Last edited by Angry Machine; 02-08-2010 at 01:55 PM.
Reply With Quote

Old 02-10-2010, 12:19 PM
steagle steagle is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 79

yeah i tend to agree that FLAC takes more processing power, if for nothing more than it's larger footprint on the drive. MP3's are simple to decode that's why 99% of portable players rely primarily on the MP3 codec (well, and the universal popularity of MP3 too of course). only a few brave companies are offering FLAC decoding and they tend to be on beefier players that can handle it.
current: Cowon S9 32GB / previous: Toshiba Gigabeat S30 / phones: Ultrasone PROLine 550, Sennheiser HD280, Sony MDR-7506
-- FLAC FTW! --
Reply With Quote

Old 02-10-2010, 12:32 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Ultra Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330

Au contraire, FLAC is extremely efficient to decode, one of the least power-hungry codecs available. It's just a matter of proper implementation. Sandisk, for example, are doing it very wrong. Cowon not so much, but it can always be improved.
Reply With Quote


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 03:54 AM.