Battery from ipod nano 2g/3g in 1g ...?

[delt]

The ipod nano 1g has a 14-hour battery, but newer ones have a 24 hour battery i believe. Do you think it would work to take the battery from a 2g or 3g and put it in a 1g? Has anyone tried this?

[gnu]

If the 2G's battery is bigger, no. If it is smaller or the same size, yes; but in that case it won't have a higher capacity -> switching batteries doesn't make sense.

[Llorean]

Higher capacity does not always translate to larger physical size, sometimes the original battery was just chosen because it was "good enough" and doesn't have the maximum capacity for its size to keep costs down.

That being said it's much more likely the later players are just more energy efficient rather than necessarily having higher capacity batteries.

[aspartam]

Batteries in all generations of Ipod Nano have a voltage of 3,7V and a capacity of 400 mAh.
So, the batteries are equal. They just have different cases.


Chronon fixed a typo.

[delt]

Ah, i see - thanks for your replies.

So, the firmware being simply more efficient (as opposed to having a different type of battery) it's possible rockbox will someday outperform the apple firmware in terms of battery life? 

[saratoga]

So, the firmware being simply more efficient (as opposed to having a different type of battery)

I don't think its the firmware, but rather that they switched to newer CPUs that used way less power.

it's possible rockbox will someday outperform the apple firmware in terms of battery life? 

I wouldn't be suprised if we already did, provided you used only FLAC/MPC and played around with the CPU clock a bit.

[delt]

I don't think its the firmware, but rather that they switched to newer CPUs that used way less power.

I also suspect that - not only the cpu, but probably the rest of the physical components as well.

I wouldn't be suprised if we already did, provided you used only FLAC/MPC and played around with the CPU clock a bit.

That would be awesome. I typically re-encode my mp3 files with lame to 32KHz 80 or 96 kbps, which enables me to fit about 150% more music on a portable player compared to standard 128kbps. At 22 or 24KHz it starts to sound a bit crappy, but still enjoyable. I assume FLAC takes up a -lot- more space since it's lossless compression, right? what about MPC?

And more importantly (i think) how do you change the CPU clock? It would be really helpful if i could downclock it to save power!! I haven't found such a setting when fiddling with it, or looking at the manual 

[saratoga]

That would be awesome. I typically re-encode my mp3 files with lame to 32KHz 80 or 96 kbps, which enables me to fit about 150% more music on a portable player compared to standard 128kbps. At 22 or 24KHz it starts to sound a bit crappy, but still enjoyable.

Don't change the sample rate.  That'll eat up a lot more CPU power and reduce quality since rockbox has to convert it back to 44.1kHz for playback. 

what about MPC?

Its pretty similar to MP3.

And more importantly (i think) how do you change the CPU clock? It would be really helpful if i could downclock it to save power!! I haven't found such a setting when fiddling with it, or looking at the manual 

You have to change the code.  Theres a filespray entry about it somewhere on the patch tracker.

[delt]

Don't change the sample rate.  That'll eat up a lot more CPU power and reduce quality since rockbox has to convert it back to 44.1kHz for playback.

hmmm.... i'll do some extra testing to see how much battery power is lost because of this. I really like fitting a whole bunch of extra mp3's, and the audio quality is still very acceptable.

Its [MPC] pretty similar to MP3.

... but uses a lot less CPU, as i understand from your above post?

You have to change the code.  Theres a filespray entry about it somewhere on the patch tracker.

Aha. I assume you need a specific cross-compiler to generate code that's useable by the ipod hardware? Where could i find such compiler, and associated linker/tools/etc...? (i haven't looked at rockbox's source code yet)

[aspartam]

Here you can read, how to compile the source code: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SimpleGuideToCompiling

But it would be complicated I think. I looked at it once and it was quite a lot   

[soap]

Its [MPC] pretty similar to MP3.

... but uses a lot less CPU, as i understand from your above post?

I think he was saying MPC's file sizes are very similar to MP3.  This is true at the commonly accepted "transparent" levels, but MPC performs worse than many others at low bitrates.

[delt]

Doing a battery benchmark with 32KHz files. That should take 8-9 hours, tomorrow i'll do the same with 44.1Khz files, same EQ settings etcetc. (i just use the middle band on the eq, all other ones have zero gain)

Don't change the sample rate.  That'll eat up a lot more CPU power and reduce quality since rockbox has to convert it back to 44.1kHz for playback.

I was just wondering, what if the input file is exactly 22050Hz, wouldn't there be an optimization in that case? It would suck having to encode speech, language training, comedy, etc. in full cd quality where it's absolutely not needed.