[Ozric]

Well after two registry edits and hours of working with the frustration known as Zune software, I finally got it to work

And after another countless hours getting my album art tags just right, I am ready to rock

So, what do most Zune users prefer to convert their lossless files to (I use FLAC)? Any advantages to WMV over AAC or vice versa? Advantages over 320kbps mp3, if any? Still got a huge library of files awaiting transcoding.

Insights appreciated

 

[Ricardo Dawkins]

Use WMA Lossless. Supported in the latest firmware updates.

WMA for Zune get better battery life than any other of the supported codecs.

is that a Zune 80, 4/8, or Zune 30 ?

 

[Ozric]

Thanks. It's a Zune 80.

 

[soozieq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricardo Dawkins /img/forum/go_quote.gif Use WMA Lossless. Supported in the latest firmware updates. WMA for Zune get better battery life than any other of the supported codecs.

Are you sure about this? I have an entire library of lossless and a copy of everything in wma (vbr) highest bitrate. I transferred some instrumental over to the Zune in lossless but didn't bother with the rest as I was worried the battery would die out fast. I was under the assumption lossless files always had a negative effect on battery life, because of the work needed to read the larger files

If you're saying it gets better battery life with wma lossless, I may as well transfer the rest over.

 

[Ozric]

Yeah, I'm a little doubtful about that statement too. I was reading on the official Microsoft battery life test figures, and they mention that they used 128 kbps WMA files for their testing; that kinda implies that higher bitrates would result in faster battery drain.

 

[Insanity]

The WMA gives a better battery life than MP3 of the same bitrate on a Zune. But WMA Lossless would likely drain the fastest of all the supported formats due to the high bitrate.

 

[soozieq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozric /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, I'm a little doubtful about that statement too. I was reading on the official Microsoft battery life test figures, and they mention that they used 128 kbps WMA files for their testing;

That figures - although I wish they'd test battery life under 'real world' usage. They must assume everyone listens to 128kbps, and while that may have been true when storage capacity was limited, that's no longer the case for the majority of us.

I started with 192kbps 3 years ago on a 1GB player, and then gradually increased the bitrate when daps started to have more space. With an 80GB Zune, there seems little point in compressing anything since I have way more space than I could ever use. But if lossless files drains battery life, then I'll stop transferring them

It would be nice if manufacturers acknowledged that with storage space of 80 and 160GB, we don't want/need to compress any more. I'd like to see battery testing on 320kbps and above.

That would seem a more 'average' bitrate to use these days.

 

[Ricardo Dawkins]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you sure about this? I have an entire library of lossless and a copy of everything in wma (vbr) highest bitrate. I transferred some instrumental over to the Zune in lossless but didn't bother with the rest as I was worried the battery would die out fast. I was under the assumption lossless files always had a negative effect on battery life, because of the work needed to read the larger files If you're saying it gets better battery life with wma lossless, I may as well transfer the rest over.

WMA (not WMA Lossless.) Wasn't trying to confuse you.