battery life - .ogg vs .mp3

Hello eyeryone,

.mp3 or .ogg

Is there a difference affecting battery life?
I've started to rip my CD's with .ogg, but I'm not sure which format I should use.

I found this in a different forum

"Vorbis needs more processing power to decode than mp3, at least in the implementations used by iRiver."

How about implemantations in MEIZU M6?

The same goes for meizu m6. Ogg files will drain your battery life faster.

hmm that sucks

the post above was in 2003, so wasn't there enough time to do something about that

Which format do you all use? Which one is better?

I am no technician or programming expert but i do know ogg uses a more complicated algorithm... it makes for better sound but also more cpu use so more battery use..
on the other hand... on a theoretical 36 hours of battery life...who cares?

Well as I understood it, the 36hours autonomy was achieved by optimizing the mp3 decoding algorithm. I 'm no sure the new firmware did increase the autonomy in ogg decoding...
Maybe I should test ; the only thing is that each test would typically take more than a day ^_^

Originally Posted by doofeOhren

hmm that sucks

the post above was in 2003, so wasn't there enough time to do something about that

Which format do you all use? Which one is better?

Well, no. Nothing was done about it, since most players are designated as "MP3" players. they will do that best. Additional codes are written to interpret other codecs like ogg, but its sorta like running a program to do that, the player ends up chewing more resources to decode the lossy audio file. MP3 playback is (in most cases nowadays) hardware decoded, so it is able to playback MP3's fast and efficiently.

I personally use OGG, its got a nice and rich sound to it, and the bitrate is able to surpass that of MP3's. At around 500kbps is close to the transparent point for me.

Which is better? Well that depends on how you like your music. If you're an audiophile that likes and can hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and 500kbps ogg files then go for it! The quality difference is quite large with a good pair of headphones. If you are the type that doesn't critically antagonise
quality then i'd say MP3 is sufficient for you.

Also take into consideration the additional memory usage of higher quality audio files. a 320kbps song takes at best ~7mb, if your running into 500kbps ogg files it will chew around 11mb per song. At which point its simply much better to use FLAC files :D :D :D :D :D

Well as I understood it, the 36hours autonomy was achieved by optimizing the mp3 decoding algorithm.

I think max. playing time is figured out with very low bitrated songs, so in reality playing 192 kbps for ex. it will be a few hours less. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

@Blackstar
I'm still waiting for my Westone UM1 to come

can hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and 500kbps ogg files then go for it!

:eek: I'm using 192kbps (latest lame & oggenc aotuv encoder) ripping with EAC

Originally Posted by doofeOhren

:eek: I'm using 192kbps (latest lame & oggenc aotuv encoder) ripping with EAC

Well thats fine, the mp3 equivalent would be ~224 kbps. In my opinion, Ogg doesn't provide any real benefit between 128 < x < 320 over mp3's. They certainly beat mp3's at lower bitrates and at bitrates higher than 320