Hi, I bought an iRiver HP-120 which can read ogg files (via a hard drive). Many people experiment that reading ogg file decrease the baterry charge more quickly than with mp3 at the same bitrate. The only raisonnable reason of that mysterious thing is that reading ogg file is not sequential onto hard drive, and the hard drive head must move more than for reading an mp3 at the same quality, and that consume more energy. Right ? PS : for the benchmark, see the graph onto HYPERLINK "http://www.iriver.com/community/discussion_list.asp?pre_idx=8620&top_ti tle=User%20Forum&page=2&category=&p_name=&word="http://www.iriver.com/co mmunity/discussion_list.asp?pre_idx=8620&top_title=User%20Forum&page=2&c ategory=&p_name=&word --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 29/07/2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/attachments/20040730/4a9e515b/attachment.html
It's nothing to do with the harddrive. Any "normal" song will comfortably fit inside the iHP-120's 32Mb buffer. The reason for the battery drain is the higher CPU load associated with ogg decoding. The MP3 decoding software is very highly optimised, the ogg implementation most likely much less so. Michiel Franck Charlemagne wrote:> Hi, > > I bought an iRiver HP-120 which can read ogg files (via a hard drive). > Many people experiment that reading ogg file decrease the baterry > charge more quickly than with mp3 at the same bitrate. > > The only raisonnable reason of that mysterious thing is that reading > ogg file is not sequential onto hard drive, and the hard drive head > must move more than for reading an mp3 at the same quality, and that > consume more energy. > > > Right ? > > PS : for the benchmark, see the graph onto > http://www.iriver.com/community/discussion_list.asp?pre_idx=8620&top_title=User%20Forum&page=2&category=&p_name=&word> <http://www.iriver.com/community/discussion_list.asp?pre_idx=8620&top_title=User%20Forum&page=2&category=&p_name=&word=> > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 29/07/2004 > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Vorbis mailing list >Vorbis@xiph.org >http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis > >
<410A5436.9080904@bibit.com> Message-ID: <410A5703.6040600@migla.ktu.lt> Ghm, i thought it koz Vorbis code is longer (bigger) than mp3, and it needs more power to decode it (i found it written somewhere about iPOD), and its nothing with optimization, plz correct me if im wrong!> The reason for the battery drain is the higher CPU load associated with > ogg decoding. The MP3 decoding software is very highly optimised, the > ogg implementation most likely much less so.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:41:49PM +0200, Franck Charlemagne wrote:> Hi, > > I bought an iRiver HP-120 which can read ogg files (via a hard drive). > Many people experiment that reading ogg file decrease the baterry charge > more quickly than with mp3 at the same bitrate. > > The only raisonnable reason of that mysterious thing is that reading ogg > file is not sequential onto hard drive, and the hard drive head must > move more than for reading an mp3 at the same quality, and that consume > more energy. > > > Right ?Nope. Oggs stream, just like mp3. The big difference is that Ogg is younger, and its decoding operations have not been as heavily optimized as mp3's. Most of the hardware players out there today are still substantially running on code I wrote for example purposes :-) Monty
<20040730205735.GC18372@xiph.org> Message-ID: <opsby7b6zxtqyzbw@mail.twonotes.com> I have observed that 'alsaplayer' needs only half the cpu time to decode an ogg file as an mp3 file on my Linux box. One clue is that my box has a Via Eden processor, which emulates the floating point operations. Unless they are using the new integer decoder, this is a surprise.