allenf
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2005
- Posts
- 1,110
- Likes
- 11
Anyone have experience of wav/lossless battery life on a flash-based player?
why does wav lossless "suck"? is 320kb mp3 better?
- Thread starter graphis_7
- Start date
Riordan
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Posts
- 871
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
that would interest me as well. as far as i know, the battery "suck factor" that leads to wavs not being recommended for portable use (the bad size/quality ratio aside) stems from two phenomena:
frequent hd-use: not relevant for flash-based units
heavier processor use for lossless compression: not relevant for wav (uncompressed).
is there more to it? 4 gb of wavs on a flash-based player would be enough for about 6-7 albums. i'd still stay with lame mp3s but there ARE purists on the move
| Originally Posted by allenf Anyone have experience of wav/lossless battery life on a flash-based player? |
that would interest me as well. as far as i know, the battery "suck factor" that leads to wavs not being recommended for portable use (the bad size/quality ratio aside) stems from two phenomena:
frequent hd-use: not relevant for flash-based units
heavier processor use for lossless compression: not relevant for wav (uncompressed).
is there more to it? 4 gb of wavs on a flash-based player would be enough for about 6-7 albums. i'd still stay with lame mp3s but there ARE purists on the move
Sparky191
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Posts
- 2,540
- Likes
- 18
The Nano would be an obvious choice.
Users who are viewing this thread
