I have a really annoying MP3 player, and I'm trying to figure out why there's a 2-3 second delay between pressing the button and the next song loading up. My first guess is that the file is encoded too high and it takes too much effort to decode it...so my plan is to re-encode them at a much lower bitrate (92kbps).
I was wondering if anybody knew which one is quicker (for the MP3 player) to decode, as this player supports both WMA and MP3, it's just a matter of which one will reduce the "caching delay".
2006-10-27 06:01:48 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Consumer Electronics ➔ Music & Music Players
it's not taking too much effort to decode it..it's just your player is slow. don't re-code your music...that's like..sooo evil from my point of view (audio engineer) and i usually flog people i catch doing it.
i don't believe you can solve the "caching delay" by changing the format, i'm pretty sure it's frimware problem...have you checked for updates?
2006-10-27 14:36:10 · answer #1 · answered by Jay Moore 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
mp3's use a far more simple algorithm, to encode the original PCM encoded file, than wma. So on any hardware based system, like an mp3 player, mp3's will not only play more easily but also consume less resources(read : battery life).On the other hand wma's being a newer and more sophisticated format will provide better sound fidelity( i.e. it'll sound better)So you can experiment with a lower bitrate wma file (my experiments show even 48kbps sounds fair) and see if it solves your problems.But if it persists stick to mp3 to prolong your playing time per charge.
2006-10-27 13:21:49 · answer #2 · answered by electro geek 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
mp3
2006-10-27 13:05:06 · answer #3 · answered by evening_dewpoint 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
|\ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \/ | P3
2006-10-27 13:06:38 · answer #4 · answered by 3ST4X 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋