Battery Life on Clip+ While Playing Flac and MP3 Files

[cbs]

I just bought Clip Plus 8GB. I largely bought on online reviews, especially on this forum. Very happy with the sound quality and other features.

I have read somewhere that while playing Flac files the recharged battery's life is less (drains quickly) as compared to playing MP3 files. I am thinking of ripping my music CDs into either Flac or 320 bits MP3.

Before I start ripping my music CDs into either of these formats, I would like to know your experiences.

If the battery life is low, then I will rip my CDs into MP3 and load them on Clip+.

Pl advise.

[CrowdAds]

[dfkt]

Rip your CDs to FLAC and keep those lossless files as a backup on your computer. You can always easily convert those FLACs to any lossy codec of your choice. That's what I do, ripping to FLAC as a backup and then converting to LAME MP3 for my players (since I wouldn't hear a difference in sound quality between FLAC and MP3 anyways).

Once a newer version of the LAME codec is released, you can always re-convert without having to re-rip the whole CD.

[SlickWilly]

Basically, the bigger the file size, the more power consumption b/c the embedded cpu has to read/process all the binary bits of the file. So since the FLAC files are bigger than the mp3 files, the more power is used, equaling less battery life.

This is why there is an asterisk next to all those specifications about battery life such as "14* Hours Continuous Playback". Then you see the asterisk "*Played back with music files at 192 kbps"....or something like that.

High Bit Rate = Short Battery Life
Low Bit Rate = Long Battery Life

[cbs]

Thanks for these clarifications. Very helpful.

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm doing a test right now.....after 7.5 hours, indicated battery remaining is 51%. This is with shuffle mode, no external card, a mixture of LAME and WMA files, with bitrates ranging from 115 to 402. Backlight, 10 seconds, brightness at minimum,EQ is set to Normal, replaygain engaged, and volume is approximately 33%.

I'm shutting the player down now, as it's time to crash, but I shall resume the test in the morning.

[saratoga]

Originally Posted by SlickWilly

Basically, the bigger the file size, the more power consumption b/c the embedded cpu has to read/process all the binary bits of the file. So since the FLAC files are bigger than the mp3 files, the more power is used, equaling less battery life.

Thats only true for hard disk players. On a flash player, file size doesn't matter.

FLAC is slow on the Fuze because Sandisk used a slow decoder that wastes lots of power. Complain to them and maybe they'll fix it.

[fhantazm]

Originally Posted by saratoga

Thats only true for hard disk players. On a flash player, file size doesn't matter.

FLAC is slow on the Fuze because Sandisk used a slow decoder that wastes lots of power. Complain to them and maybe they'll fix it.

Not that he needs me to back him up obviously, but what he says is 100% true.

You could have a 100 minute audio file and the only extraneous hit in battery life would be a bi-product of decoder technology. (ie FLAC vs MP3, etc)

[aaroncort]

It shouldn't be a huge issue like on a HDD based player since it takes far less power to read from a chip than to read and spin a HDD. That being said, the sansa battery life is pretty weak regardless even though I love the player.

[konut]

Being an old geezer gives me something that younger people don't have: perspective. The most striking thing that impressed me about the Clip was the size. After reading about how good the sound quality was, compared to other memory players, I was stunned at how small the Clip was. You want a player with more playing time? BUY A BIGGER PLAYER! There is only so much energy you can shove into a payer this small. Until the flux capacitor is perfected, we'll just have to settle for limited playing time.

[Satellite_6]

Originally Posted by konut

Being an old geezer gives me something that younger people don't have: perspective. The most striking thing that impressed me about the Clip was the size. After reading about how good the sound quality was, compared to other memory players, I was stunned at how small the Clip was. You want a player with more playing time? BUY A BIGGER PLAYER! There is only so much energy you can shove into a payer this small. Until the flux capacitor is perfected, we'll just have to settle for limited playing time.

The reason I chose the fat-but-still-pretty-darn-small i7.

If they improved the battery life to like 20+ and made the (FWIR crap) equalizer better I'd probably buy one for the fun of it.

[Marvin the Martian]

Originally Posted by Satellite_6

The reason I chose the fat-but-still-pretty-darn-small i7.

If they improved the battery life to like 20+ and made the (FWIR crap) equalizer better I'd probably buy one for the fun of it.

What's the i7 cost these days? You're still waiting for yours, right?

[Satellite_6]

Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian

What's the i7 cost these days? You're still waiting for yours, right?

Waiting to get a new one from Cowon because mine was mildly defective. Twas $140 for the 16 gig version.

If your implying that the i7 is a lot more expensive it really isn't. The difference between the 8GB versions of both DAPs is $30, and to me that seems reasonable for its advantages in battery life and settings. Of course, I spent more and got the 16 gig version to make sure I don't run out of memory.

[Marvin the Martian]

Originally Posted by Satellite_6

Waiting to get a new one from Cowon because mine was mildly defective. Twas $140 for the 16 gig version.

If your implying that the i7 is a lot more expensive it really isn't. The difference between the 8GB versions of both DAPs is $30, and to me that seems reasonable for its advantages in battery life and settings. Of course, I spent more and got the 16 gig version to make sure I don't run out of memory.

Nope, not implying anything like that...I'm just getting the itch for something different, and wondering what-all was out there.