Originally Posted by Duwenbasden
|
>Yes it does I've experiemented with it before, all the times I used wma the speed
>NEVER went above 312mhz whereas with .mp3 the lowest it went was
>416mhz,sure it only uses 2 more minutes on the pc to convert but its worth it and
>u'll be able to fit more files.
Coreplayer:
MP3 192kbps - 104MHz
WMA 96kbps - 104MHz
Not convinced about WMA using less clock cycles -- my MP3 player uses 1/3 more battery on WMA than MP3.
|
If you're using a third more battery power, that probably means the CPU's doing more work. I know that the WirelessMMX Technology in the PXA270 has instructions to help with MP3 decoding, just as the Intel 2700g chipset has instructions to help with MPEG4 (DivX and WMV) decoding... but I don't know if it has instructions for WMA decoding - which would mean, if it has to do all those calculations manually, that even if the CPU speed is low, that it'd be putting in more time into doing the maths... which would mean less battery life for you.
What player are you using again? WMP? PocketPlayer treats WMA and MP3 files the same, CPU speed setting wise, just as it did for Duwenbasden... but from what I recall, the lower bitrates for an equivalent sound quality were only possible because your CPU spent more time doing the decoding in the first place, just as h.264 provides better video quality at the same bitrate than DivX at the expense of more CPU usage.