Tests find DRM shortens player battery life by up to ~25%
Posted on 16/03/06 01:03 by Seán Byrne                             
Tests find DRM shortens player battery life by up to ~25%

When users take the specifications of an MP3 player into consideration, one very important factor most take into account is the rated battery life.  However, as many are aware, the battery life stated is generally the runtime from a full charge in ideal conditions, such as when the player is left playing without any sound enhancements (EQ, bass-boost, etc.), volume set to a moderate level, all music is 128kbps MP3, backlit display goes out within a few seconds and so on.  However, according to tests conducted by CNET, they found that while many players met or exceeded their claims, one feature that has a drastic affect on battery life is the infamous DRM.

When it comes to the Creative Zen Vision:M's 14-hour claim, CNET got about 16 hours of playback time with MP3s from a full charge, which was a nice surprise.  However, when they tried playing WMA 10 DRM crippled subscription tracks on it, they only got just over 12 hours; a loss of almost 4 hours (~25%) of playback time due to the battery-hungry DRM.  CNET found similar results with other players with WMA DRM drastically reducing battery life by up to around 20%.  Apple's FairPlay DRM seems to have less of an effect with battery life being reduced by around 8% when compared with MP3 playback.

Those who belong to subscription services such as Napster or Rhapsody have it worse. Music rented from these services arrive in the WMA DRM 10 format, and it takes extra processing power to ensure that the licenses making the tracks work are still valid and match up to the device itself. Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them. Take, for instance, the critically acclaimed Creative Zen Vision:M, with a rated battery life of up to 14 hours for audio and 4 hours for video. CNET tested it at nearly 16 hours, with MP3s--impressive indeed. Upon playing back only WMA subscription tracks, the Vision:M scored at just more than 12 hours. That's a loss of almost 4 hours, and you haven't even turned the backlight on yet.

We found similar discrepancies with other PlaysForSure players. The Archos Gmini 402 Camcorder maxed out at 11 hours, but with DRM tracks, it played for less than 9 hours. The iRiver U10, with an astounding life of about 32 hours, came in at about 27 hours playing subscription tracks. Even the iPod, playing back only FairPlay AAC tracks, underperformed MP3s by about 8 percent. What I'm saying is that while battery life may not be a critical issue today, as it was when one of the original hard drive players--the Creative Nomad Jukebox--lasted a pathetic 4 hours running on four AA nickel-metal-hydride rechargeables (and much worse on alkalines), the industry needs to include battery specs for DRM audio tracks or the tracks we're buying or subscribing. Yet, here's another reason why we should still be ripping our music in MP3: better battery life, the most obvious reason being universal device compatibility.

The full article can be read here.

When it comes to maximising battery life in a portable MP3 player, this is a clear sign that one should avoid playing DRM protected music if at all possible and also another good reason to get the music converted into a more battery-friendly format.  While 2 to 4 hours may not seem a lot to some people, this can be the difference between listening to music to the end of a lengthy journey or getting left in silence a couple of hours before the journey is complete. 

With the shorter battery life caused by DRM, this means that consumers have to recharge their battery more often, which in turn results in a shorter overall battery life before it needs replacement.  Finally, while most MP3 players now have a rechargeable battery, for those who still use disposable AA/AAA type batteries and listen to copy-protected music, not only does DRM cut their listening time, but it also costs them more in replacing batteries, not to mention more battery waste building up in landfills (if not recycled).

Source: c|net News - MP3 Insider

more cdfreaks.com news
1
Sony faces Blu-ray patent lawsuit
04:00
1
Panasonic chases European Blu-ray recorder market
08:22
4
Man arrested for music piracy
05:50
14
August Blu-ray movie sales drop
05:47
5
RIAA wins case after defendant deletes evidence
05:20
0
New low-price SSD's from Samsung
18:46
0
New Blu-ray media announced by Panasonic
17:30
Reactions
Discuss this article with your fellow community members! We appreciate your valuable input, but please keep the reaction policy in mind and make sure your reaction is constructive.
By StarGhost, Thursday 16 March 2006 06:38
StarGhostAnother reason to buy an iAudio device over the rest... It doesn't support DRM. Smilie
By Elder Young, Thursday 16 March 2006 07:13
Does this mean I can be somewhat facetious and make the argument that DRM is bad for the environment (shorter battery life -> more fossil fuels burned -> more pollution)? While I wouldn't be surprised to find that handling the DRM reduces battery life, it's pretty stupid to make that argument by comparing the decoding of two different codecs. I believe that OGG is harder to decode than MP3, so it would reduce the battery life. If you're going to blame it on DRM, you have to compare a WMA with DRM to a WMA of the same song without DRM and make sure both files are at the same bitrate.
By Elder Young, Thursday 16 March 2006 07:14
Sorry to double post, but is the link you posted correct because I see no mention of battery life?
By Wesociety, Thursday 16 March 2006 07:23
Wesocietydown with DRM! portability is not piracy! cool
By katastrofe, Thursday 16 March 2006 11:42
Not siding with DRM by any means, but these tests are rubbish. If you want to look at the effect of DRM you should compare battery life on WMA10 w/o DRM to the same set of tracks in WMA10 with DRM - same goes for the apple tracks. As AAC and WMA10 have higher compression of the music, it's likely they need more decoding power compared to MP3, which is why the battery time is reduced. I'm sure the DRM will reduce battery life a little, but not by nearly as much as is claimed here! clown
By Seán, Thursday 16 March 2006 12:46
SeánSorry, the source link pointed to the wrong article. This should be corrected now. Wink
[edited by Seán on 16.03.2006 12:47]
By lui_gough, Thursday 16 March 2006 13:04
Totally agreed - i have a cheap stick player and MP3 VS WMA-8 i can see a 10%+ difference in battery life!!! and more noise cos of the CPU working harder on WMA. This article is fluff to me.
By Seán, Thursday 16 March 2006 13:21
SeánIt's a pity CNET did not compare the battery life of WMA unprotected against WMA-DRM music. However, I think what CNET is trying to get at is that as most consumers use MP3 as their preferred format and most music stores force consumers to use a DRM compatible codec due to MP3 lacking native DRM support, this is likely the reason why they compare MP3 directly against WMA DRM, rather than test WMA DRM against unprotected WMA. Even though AAC is more sophisticated than MP3 and WMA (from what I recall), it is interesting to see that the iPod battery life is reduced by only 8% with AAC DRM compared with MP3 tracks. However, going by a review I came across where they compare MP3 playback time against WMA (where they don't mention is protected), it appears that just using WMA seriously shortens the battery life as you mentioned.
By Saruman, Thursday 16 March 2006 13:35
Quote: "While 2 to 4 hours may not seem a lot to some people, this can be the difference between listening to music to the end of a lengthy journey or getting left in silence a couple of hours before the journey is complete. " OK, realistically, how many people actually listen to 10 hours of music all at once on a trip? I mean noone makes rest stops, if they're driving? Noone gives their ears a break after a couple of hours? I used to be a heavy walkman user in my youth and I could not go more than three hours without resting my ears, although I rarely had to wait that long because my parents' bladders could not wait that long, most times. Smilie I can't see listening to music that long even on a long plane ride. Plus, especially driving or riding in a car, you'd have the ability to re-charge the battery if not use a car lighter adapter (don't MP3 players have adapters to allow them to recharge and play through the lighter?)
By Roj, Thursday 16 March 2006 14:57
...and on and on and on...
[edited by Roj on 16.03.2006 14:58]
By FidelC, Thursday 16 March 2006 18:05
FidelCI just tried to mesure cpu usage in windows task manager when playing Flac vs Mp3 formats of the same song. It was very hard to tell, as cpu usage stayed below 5% and even dropped to 0% several times, therefore making the test very inacurate. But I would bet i saw 0% more times while playing Flac, which is logical, cos Flac is lossless and the decoder if i understand correctly only have to reconstruct quiet spots leaving the original sound intact. To be more precise somebody has to try it on a slower machine or use some wares. Sorry to be off the topic slightly, but i couldnt care less for wma/drm rubbish. P.S. Still waiting for the first Flac player to hit the market, whatever brand it is. Cheers.
[edited by FidelC on 16.03.2006 18:06]
By themushroom, Thursday 16 March 2006 23:06
Do those devices by Sony that don't do MP3/WMA count?
By Ordanos, Friday 17 March 2006 02:08
I call bullshit here. Like others that have posted before me, DRM should not even be mentioned in the title here. I find the cdfreaks title to be bad, "Tests find DRM shortens player battery life by up to ...". This is not true at all. What it found was that WMA used more battery life than MP3. Now if they had compared WMA with no DRM to WMA with DRM then you'd have a valid title. I'm not saying I'm for DRM (who is?) but let's make sure to use common sense when we fight it.
Name: Email:



Your comment:

Receive notification on new comments?