Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison Test

Discuss anything related to portable freeware here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
TP109
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Midwestern US

Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison Test

#1 Post by TP109 »

I compared 27 portable audio players against each other for launch speed and RAM usage. The data is generalized because I consider this to be more of an unofficial and preliminary comparison test.

Launch speed based on the average for initial and subsequent launches. Listed by speed within each group.
  • Less than 1 Second:
    Boom 1.0.21
    CoolPlayer 219
    Evil Player 1.31
    Hokrain 1.0.5
    M3 1.0
    Mcool 16.0.0.3336
    Pump 1.0.4.220
    Soprano 1.72

    1-2.5 Seconds:
    Billy 1.03
    Trout 1.0.6 bld 76
    Winyl 3.2.1
    WVPlayer 1.2.1.5
    1by1 1.88
    XMplay 3.8.2.3
    OooPlayer 2.1.2

    2.5-5 Seconds:
    Aimp2 2.61 bld 583
    Nemp 4.6.2.553
    Foobar2000 1.3.10
    Spider 2.5.3
    Easy MP3 Player 1.0.0.0
    Xion 1.5 bld 160

    5-9 Seconds:
    Resonic 0.7b
    Aimp4 4.02 bld 1711
    Audacious 3.7.2
    BZR Player 1.04

    10 Seconds or more:
    Aimp3 3.60 bld 1502
    Clementine 1.3.1
Peak RAM usage (with no files). Listed by usage within each group:
  • 6-11 MB:
    M3 1.0
    CoolPlayer 219
    Billy 1.03
    Evil Player 1.31
    Hokrain 1.0.5
    Soprano 1.72
    Pump 1.0.4.220
    Boom 1.0.21
    WVPlayer 1.2.1.5
    XMplay 3.8.2.3

    12-17 MB:
    Mcool 16.0.0.3336
    Easy MP3 Player 1.0.0.0
    1by1 1.88
    Xion 1.5 bld 160
    Aimp2 2.61 bld 583

    20-30 MB:
    Winyl 3.2.1
    Audacious 3.7.2
    Foobar2000 1.3.10
    BZR Player 1.04
    Spider 2.5.3

    30-60 MB:
    OooPlayer 2.1.2
    Trout 1.0.6 bld 76
    Resonic 0.7b

    60-93 MB:
    Nemp 4.6.2.553
    Aimp4 4.02 bld 1711
    Aimp3 3.60 bld 1502
    Clementine 1.3.1
Last edited by TP109 on Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:00 am, edited 9 times in total.

freakazoid
Posts: 1212
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#2 Post by freakazoid »

Thanks for putting this together, TP109.

Here are three more players to test:

Evil Player - http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=974

When I used this years ago, this barebones player was always the lightest RAM-wise.

puMP3 - http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... f=4&t=4387

While searching for Evil Player on TPFC, I came across this older submission entry of mine. Just tested this one and it is quite light. Peak memory was 7MB. Currently running at 3.7MB RAM. Could use your benchmarks though :)

Soprano - http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1143

Another barebones player.

All are BASS players, so memory usage should be light. Are no longer maintained however.
is it stealth? ;)

TP109
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Midwestern US

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#3 Post by TP109 »

freakazoid wrote: Here are three more players to test:
I updated my OP with those three players and changed the formatting a bit.

TP109
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Midwestern US

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#4 Post by TP109 »

Added another 11 players for a total of 27. Changes are in the OP.

TP109
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Midwestern US

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#5 Post by TP109 »

Finished testing with AppTimer but I need to confirm the results with manual testing. AppTimer is designed to work best for apps with launch times of 2 seconds or less. Some of the times measured with AppTimer don't correlate with the longer times I observed previously. Going to try to post some data within 24 hours once I get this straightened out.

TP109
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Midwestern US

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#6 Post by TP109 »

Completed the audio player tests and uploaded to the link below:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fi ... 7485017405

Many players have high launch time variations so manual testing was required to obtain more accurate results. A launch variation chart is included on the chart sheet. To obtain an estimate of max launch time, multiply the percentage by the avg launch time. For example, if a player has a variation of 500 and a launch time of 1 sec, the max would be about 5 secs.

Launch time isn't really the most important parameter for an audio player as much as stability and resource usage. Most of the players operated well except for Clementine, Resonic, BZR Player, and to a lesser extent OooPlayer which had high launch times, high RAM usage, slow operation and freezing issues. Although Aimp3 and Aimp4 also have higher than average launch times and RAM usage, they operate quickly and smoothly and didn't appear to cause any problems.

The results need some more verification and tweaking, but are pretty close.
Last edited by TP109 on Sun May 01, 2016 9:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

TP109
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Midwestern US

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#7 Post by TP109 »

Edited May 1, 2016. Added "RAM - File Playing" chart to indicate RAM usage while playing an mp3 file. Also updated the spreadsheet. The "RAM -File Playing" chart is the most significant measurement since it shows how much RAM a player uses when playing a file. Also, the last four players on that chart are the audio players that were the most unstable on my system.

Updated the charts in test results spreadsheet and uploaded to link below:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fi ... 4183980221

Updated charts:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#8 Post by webfork »

Excellent, thanks. I get that Clementine is going to run a little heavier as it's cross-platform and has a ton of features, but many of the others really surprised me, especially Coolplayer given it's age. Foobar always seemed to me extremely lightweight and snappy but here it looks somewhere in the middle. AIMP is also disappointing.

Anyway, very nice to see a solid breakdown on all these tools. This gives some weight to some of my recommendations over time.

---

Edit: if you get a chance, you should run a test on iTunes or Windows Media Player as a baseline ;)

TP109
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Midwestern US

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#9 Post by TP109 »

Webfork wrote: Edit: if you get a chance, you should run a test on iTunes or Windows Media Player as a baseline
I don't have either of those installed and don't use them. If someone has those installed on an XP system and can test and provide the data, I can incorporate that into the test results.

Specular
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#10 Post by Specular »

How many files were loaded when the players were launched? I notice the memory usage was calculated with 'no files', does that mean none were loaded at all?

For me the real speed test is be how each program handles displaying/loading hundreds of files at launch and in use, as some are filename based (I used the excellent little Billy for a long time), while others load metadata, cover art and such.

TP109
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Midwestern US

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#11 Post by TP109 »

Specular wrote:How many files were loaded when the players were launched? I notice the memory usage was calculated with 'no files', does that mean none were loaded at all?
Yes, no files loaded. Only a single mp3 file of 60MB was used for the file playing measurements.
Specular wrote:For me the real speed test is be how each program handles displaying/loading hundreds of files at launch and in use, as some are filename based (I used the excellent little Billy for a long time), while others load metadata, cover art and such.
I agree. Perhaps someone else will do that.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#12 Post by webfork »

TP109 wrote:
Webfork wrote: Edit: if you get a chance, you should run a test on iTunes or Windows Media Player as a baseline
I don't have either of those installed and don't use them. If someone has those installed on an XP system and can test and provide the data, I can incorporate that into the test results.
*shrug* That's for the best -- they're both terrible. Part of what pushed me to portable freeware was widely-used garbage like IE and iTunes.

TP109
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Location: Midwestern US

Re: Portable Audio Player Usage and Launch Speed Comparison

#13 Post by TP109 »

webfork wrote:they're both terrible.
lol. Yes, That is why I don't use them. Uninstalled WMP long ago and tried iTunes only once.

Post Reply