Found interesting article about Bluetooth LE Audio technology vs Bluetooth Classic

This "article" looks like chatbot output... the prose has lots of red flags for me. That doesn't mean the individual pieces of information are incorrect, but I wouldn't take the "analysis" onboard uncriticially.

One might look at the chart and assume that the mentioned features for the version were implemented in devices by virtue of seeing the version number in the specs but that misses the layered nature of the protocols that get implemented at a base layer and then optional capabilities that can be added on top. Optional being a key word there. Lots of devices have a certain BT version level specified, but offer really no more capability than devices at much more previous generations of BT.

WH

My Oticon INTENT1 don't sound as good as the Spheres.

@cvkemp said:

My Oticon INTENT1 don't sound as good as the Spheres.

Sonova brands use a much higher sampling rate than Oticon, so they will always sound better for streaming audio (if you're able to perceive the difference in the first place).

@Hearing_Potential said:

Sonova brands use a much higher sampling rate than Oticon, so they will always sound better for streaming audio

I think Oticon using LEA with the LC3 codec can sound better than Sonova using Classic at any sampling rate. LC3 uses a much lower rate to achieve better frequency response, and dynamics, and much lower power output.

Exactly, but truth be told I certainly can't tell the difference through my PowerAmp player, but yeah there's definitely a difference on podcasts,TY etc

It seems that Sonova have implemented the core bluetooth 5.3 standard, but they have only supported bluetooth low energy 5.2 in the new Audeo E product and do not support connection subrating to switch between low and high power streaming states for classic audio which was added with LE 5.3. LE 5.2 is required for LE audio and the LC3 codec which would make the Audeo E devices at least auracast ready.

Bluetooth software stack implementations are more complex than a single version number, which is why there are still a lot of issues with compatibility, for example Sonova brand hearing aids don't work well with many Huawei phones because of how Huawei have implemented their bluetooth software stack.

@OcramSagev said:

The Infinio has BT 5.3 per Phonak published specs. It’s on page 57 of the Phonak Sphere user manual.

Good to know, my mistake, thanks for chiming in! 👌👌

@Hearing_Potential said:

It seems that Sonova have implemented the core bluetooth 5.3 standard, but they have only supported bluetooth low energy 5.2 in the new Audeo E product and do not support connection subrating to switch between low and high power streaming states for classic audio which was added with LE 5.3.

Does that mean that connection subrating is possibly matter of future firmware upgrade or it is hardware issue?

Phonak have always stated it's a firmware update,so this "thing" of which Bluetooth version is irrelevant, as it stands at moment Sonova are just playing around, a lot of $$ are at stake..

The LC3 codec isn't the limiting factor. It's Oticon's sampling rate. The LC3 codec when used in Widex hearing aids is superior to MiFi, but they also use a 33.x kHz sampling rate in their hearing aids which makes it lower quality than individuals with normal hearing would experience with your average bluetooth earbud also using the LC3 codec. Oticon uses an even lower sampling rate in Intent than both Widex and Sonova brands. If you want the best music experience with LC3 Widex offers the best performance, but whether an individual can hear the difference depends on whether their hearing system can actually encode it.

If there's so much damage that most users cannot perceive the difference between the sampling rates of different hearing aid brands (definitely not true for milder degrees of loss) then anything with LC3 is better than Mifi because the Mifi bitrates average around 64kbps which is suitable for speech but not suited to music.