I did a test with my Panasonic portable CD MP3 player recently and here's what I came up with. The Panasonic is a portable CD player with two tiny displays, it reads CD's as well as MP3's, has mechanical parts which move quite a lot during playback, and it runs on two AA batteries. During the test I used NiMH rechargeable batteries and played it on 75% of it's volume with eq on and believe it or not it gave me well over 60 hours of playtime, (it will play even longer on alcalines). Now, I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation why iPods (which have no moving parts and a better battery then two AA's) can't do that, and I would honestly like to hear it from someone.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod Battery life
- Thread starter Labi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The ipods ultra-small form compared to your CD player...
Display is in color, brighter, and probably about 4 times the size...
The HD can hold 5,000 songs (on the 20gb) compared to your CD's 12 which makes it a bit easier to find not to mention all the song info your ipod can hold...
Theirs more I missed that others can fill in for you
Display is in color, brighter, and probably about 4 times the size...
The HD can hold 5,000 songs (on the 20gb) compared to your CD's 12 which makes it a bit easier to find not to mention all the song info your ipod can hold...
Theirs more I missed that others can fill in for you
greenguy4 said:
Are you saying that the more songs it can store, the more power it needs? That doesn't make sence. The facts about the display are valid but what about iPod shuffle 512 mb. It can hold less then the CD (700mb) has no display, no OS and still gives 12 hours max.
Labi said:
More files means more work for the MP3 player to keep track of, find, and eventually play the songs.
Labi said:
It's not very big though. There's physically less room to hold all that charge that twin AA batteries are capable of.
I have to say 60 hours of continues music sounds way out of proportion to me.
I believe that a mp3 cd player don't spin the cd constantly. The mp3 played is stored in a buffer. So no moving parts for the duration of a song or so => less use of power.
Correct me if im wrong.
Doesnt explain the battery on the shuffle though.
I believe that a mp3 cd player don't spin the cd constantly. The mp3 played is stored in a buffer. So no moving parts for the duration of a song or so => less use of power.
Correct me if im wrong.
Doesnt explain the battery on the shuffle though.
indeed, and its lack of a screen should also imply that it should have an even longer life. However, the shuffle really is tiny, and its battery is far smaller than two chunky AA's.Labi said: