Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Drawback of having bluetooth classic stereo audio

This topic is closed.

64 replies6.8k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
Edited

In reply to @Don

@Don said:

BLE would limit the devices you could connect to, to just a phone. Classic would connect to laptops, tablets, and generic Bluetooth transmitters

Perhaps in the best of all possible worlds it would be like Wi-Fi connectivity with backwards compatibility built into a newer standard in ’s, e.g., do MFI or MFA or some combined standard but still allow you, if you want to burn HA battery, to do BT Classic from an HA.

TV’s, stereos, headphones do get old and die or just get worn out. Since smartphones are a big driving force for connectivity to everything (HA’s included), I think you’ll see whatever BT standard prevails in smartphones take over the future world of devices. And I think most people would be frustrated by Phonak’s connect-one-device-at-a-time-only limitation as a number of Marvel users in the forum have already grumbled about.

OTH, the Bluetooth SIG has supposedly been working on a HA BT protocol since something like 2014 and the eventual appearance of such a standard is still only hinted at (a poster in the forum a few weeks back hinted such a standard was finally about to appear). Maybe it’s like the Blu-Ray encoding standard. The various interest groups can’t agree because if patents, copyrights, etc., are involved, the entity(ies) whose special protocol or hardware are involved is going to end up collecting royalties from everyone else for the adoption (believe that was the Blu-Ray sticking point back in the day).

In reply to @chrluc

As long as people are giving honest opinions pro/con about the products, there is nothing wrong with discussion. The reality is that there are legitimate pros / cons about all the products. There is no product that’s a clear winner in all aspects. In theory, Phonak Marvels could have been a “game changer”, but there are notable flaws in the product, such as single pairing, unreliable connections and asymmetric battery consumption. I wasn’t bothered by the battery consumption, but single pairing and unreliable connections were show-stoppers. The implementation on the other hand, is much more seamlessly integrated and it’s not unreasonable to think that the Android implementation will also be an improvement over Bluetooth Classic.

In reply to @Don

You don’t necessarily need Bluetooth Classic to connect with a laptop. My laptop will connect with the Opn , even though there is no need to do so, because audio is streamed from the connectclip, not from the HAs. All that’s required to use a device on a laptop is a driver. With that, there would be no need for Bluetooth Classic. I guess we will have to wait and see what the others do.

I think there will be a driver that the manufacture provides for streaming. ASHA source code is open. It is only a matter of time til someone makes a driver compatible with other OS.

I’d probably seriously consider the Bluetooth Classic route if I were in the market today. I also believe that A2DP (Classic) and Made For … protocols are all stopgap measures. My bet is that eventually Bluetooth SIG will announce official low energy audio standards. How long are we all prepared to wait?

Edited

For those betting on Bluetooth Classic as the way to go, here’s an August, 2018, article on 5.0 LE from How To Geek. It basically says if you have a BT 5.0 LE devices, you’ll have a lot better audio experience with a lot less power consumption than BT Classic and says that BT 5.0 LE is backwards compatible with BT Classic, so you can still use it with legacy devices. All someone needs to do is figure how how to apply it to ’s and somehow incorporate the possibility of bidirectionality if one wants to use HA microphones as a phone/speaking microphone. Quote from article: https://www.howtogeek.com/343718/whats-different-in-bluetooth-5.0/4

"If you can get your hands on an Android phone with Bluetooth 5.0 and Bluetooth 5.0 headphones, you’ll likely have a much better wireless audio experience than you would with the older Bluetooth standard.

iPhone users can get a good experience with Apple’s own AirPods or Beats headphones thanks to the W1 chip, but solid Bluetooth audio is easier to get on Android now, too. Bluetooth 5.0 should even improve wireless headphones on the iPhone if you choose to go for third-party Bluetooth 5.0 headphones instead of Apple headphones with a W1 chip.

We don’t recommend upgrading every last little thing, however. Even if you have a Bluetooth 5.0-enabled laptop, for example, upgrading to a Bluetooth 5.0-enabled mouse probably won’t be a big improvement. But, as support for Bluetooth 5.0 finds its way into every new Bluetooth device, Bluetooth peripherals will get better and Bluetooth will become more reliable and power-efficient."

The following article just comparing BT 4.2 LE to BT Classic says that BT 4.2 LE normally consumes only 1 to 5% of the power of Bluetooth Classic and never more than 50% of the power that Bluetooth Classic would. So in a battery limited device like a HA, for someone who likes to do a lot of streaming, that’s a big hit on battery life (as the big proportional drop in Marvel battery life doing relative little BT Classic streaming well illustrates). Bluetooth Classic Vs Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) : Whats different5

The How to Geek article notes that higher data transfer capacity of BT 5.0 LE compared to BT 4.x LE.

Edit_Update: Example of effect BT 4.2 LE and Apple’s W1 chip have on BT streaming taken from another How to Geek article: https://www.howtogeek.com/340290/what-is-apple’s-w1-chip/2

“As well as making pairing and switching devices a lot easier, the W1 chip also increases the range of the Bluetooth connection and gives headphones a better battery life. For example, the Beats Solo3 has a battery life that lasts 40 hours and a range of up to 150 feet. Those numbers are just insane for Bluetooth.”

Hmmm. I’ve been seeing “Bluetooth 5” headphones and buds advertised for a while now, and I still have no idea what they’re on about. What about them is Bluetooth 5? Any Bluetooth audio that’s “open” uses A2DP, which is a Bluetooth Classic protocol. Afaik, nothing about Bluetooth Classic changed in Bluetooth 5. It just incorporates it. So when the guy says you’re going to get a much better wireless audio experience with 5, my bs meter goes off the scale. In the same vein, he seems to think that Samsung’s dual audio feature has something to do with a new BT 5 feature. No. It’s simply two separate Bluetooth Classic connections.

Edited

@d_Wooluf When I have time, I’ll go right to the 5.0 spec at the Bluetooth site. But perhaps this should satisfy you for now. It’s a review of the BT 5.0 SIG standard shortly after it was created and what it means about audio quality, range, and energy consumption in BT 5.0 LE

https://www.guidingtech.com/63668/bluetooth-5-0/2

In general I’ve found How to Geek articles to contain high-quality, accurate information. Maybe it’s you that are misinformed…

And here is a more technical review of how BT 5.0 LE can carry large amounts of data at high speed with low energy consumption including audio by “hacking” advert channels or by further revision and support in the 5.0 spec (as reviewed in 2017). There is now a BT 5.1 spec out as of January, 2019, but I didn’t see any revision that to my naive eye looked like it affected audio transmission.

" The high speed PHY also lays down the foundation for the potential introduction of audio over (similar to current Bluetooth Classic, defined here as any Bluetooth specification before BTv4.0, audio capability) which will potentially be introduced in a future revision, although Bluetooth 5 already makes provisions for the possibility of broadcasting audio (or synchronous data) over advert channels."

http://www.summitdata.com/blog/whats-new-with-bluetooth-5-0/3

I’m frequently misinformed. In this case, I really don’t think so. I’ve read the quoted passage and counted 2 ‘potential’ and 1 ‘possibility’. There is no open audio standard. The only open audio standard is a2dp which is part of Bluetooth classic. Subsumed by, but not changed by 5.

So, lots of potential, but as of now, buying BT 5 phone and headphones will not change your listening experience in the slightest. He implies otherwise, especially when he says…

“If you’ve held off on wireless headphones because you preferred the clean, lossless sound of wired, you might give Bluetooth 5.0 a shot.”

A strong implication that the benefits of BT 5 are realisable in audio now. They’re not.

Edited

Don’t know if it’s really for real but you can find a number of “foreign” earbuds on Amazon that claim that they are operating on 5.0 audio and some of the reviewers claim that they get great battery life and distance. Anything resembling a BT 5.0 headphone is harder to find.

https://www.amazon.com/TOZO-Bluetooth-Wireless-Headphones-Waterproof/dp/B07J2Z5DBM

The particular one above seems pretty popular, about 2,000 reviews, supposedly.

The Jabra Elite 85h is a BT 5.0 compliant headset but it looks like it uses all Bluetooth Classic audio profiles. Presumably, if audio is officially integrated into BT 5.x, it will be upgradeable. It only has 10 m of connectivity. https://www.jabra.com/_/media/Jabra_VXi_Product-Documentation/Jabra-Elite-85h/Technical-specifications/RevA/Jabra-Elite-85h-Techsheet-A4-WEB.pdf

5 may be referring to the low energy connection between the two buds. That might be a proprietary solution built on BT 5. I’ve also seen headsets advertised as BT 5. That might be technically true because the BT 5 spec encompasses BT classic, but it’s a misrepresentation I think. Trying to fool people that they’re buying ‘new and improved’ when they’re really buying ‘same old’.

In reply to @darylm

@darylm said:

You don’t necessarily need Bluetooth Classic to connect with a laptop. My laptop will connect with the Opn HAs, even though there is no need to do so, because audio is streamed from the connectclip, not from the HAs. All that’s required to use a BLE device on a laptop is a driver. With that, there would be no need for Bluetooth Classic. I guess we will have to wait and see what the others do.

No, we are talking about connections without an intermediate device, so if the hearing aids did only it would mean, currently, a smartphone only connection. The breakthrough that Phonak started, and they and other companies will refine, is classic Bluetooth connections to a variety of devices without an intermediate device.

I have the Phonak Compilot 2 intermediate device and it is fabulous, but intermediate devices have been out for a long time. My first was the original Resound Phone Clip (not the Phone Clip+) in 2011 and it worked OK but it had several shortcomings that the Phone Clip+ mostly answered in 2013.

I’m not talking about an intermediate device. Most modern devices (laptops, tablets, phones) support both bluetooth classic and . My laptop does, for example. It will pair directly with the , but it just can’t do anything with them, because there is no driver and app. My android phone also pairs with the HAs, not for streaming, but for the Opn app to work. (There is no Opn app for a laptop, but there could be.) If the HA manufacturer made a driver, it would be possible to stream from a laptop over BLE, similarly to a smartphone.

Edited

In reply to @chrluc

@chrluc said:

For example, the Quattro is physically one of the larger rechargeable hearing aids in this class, and this may be due to a larger internal battery.

Your assertion is VERY incorrect:https://forum.hearingtracker.com/t/resound-quattro-performance-in-noise/41729/20?u=jim_lewis (member archive)

The Quattro’s are smaller in dimensions than the Marvels and probably almost identical in weight.

The Quattro’s do draw less current. Marvels (using disposables) draw 2.1 mA according to tech literature cited in linked forum post above (battery drain test). The Quattro’s with a LP or MP receiver draw 1.3 mA at most. That would mean if the cited battery charge lifetimes without are based on the standard test conditions by which battery drain is measured, with that current drain the Marvels actually have to have a BIGGER battery than the Quattro’s to go 24 hours vs the Quattro’s going 30 hours with ~2/3 the battery drain (2.1 mA x 24 hrs = 50.4 mAh approx. battery size for Marvels, 1.3 mA x 30 hrs = 39 mAh approx. battery size for Quattro’s - a pretty gross calculation that’s probably wrong in exact size but probably roughly reflects relative battery size, for whatever that means, probably not much)

However, conclusions about the draining effect of BT Classic vs BT LE have nothing to do with CROSS- comparisons. It’s the INTERNAL proportion of a device’s intrinsic battery life, whatever it is (and the two almost have identical battery charge lives) that allows one to make the conclusion that using BT Classic costs a device more than using BT LE. Another way of putting it 4 hours of BT Classic costs Marvel 8 hours of battery life (24 hrs → 16 hrs). So an hour of BT Classic streaming costs 2 functional no-BT usage hours (8 hours of standard battery life lost divided by 4 hours BT Classic streaming). For the Quattro’s, for 12 hours of BT LE streaming 6 hours standard battery life are lost (30 hrs → 24 hrs), so 6 hours lost, divided by 12 hours streaming, for using BT LE, the Quattro’s only spend 0.5 hours of standard battery life to stream 1 hour of BT LE. That’s only only 1/4 the proportional cost of streaming BT Classic. There is no comparison of Phonak vs. Quattro here, good or bad. It’s simply a comparison of a device using BT Classic vs. BT LE. And whether the cost really matters or not, that’s another question. The Marvels by most accounts are fantastic hearing aids, maybe the very best on the market right now. Their audio quality is superb. The streaming is superb and close to a universal connection to other BT devices. Maybe I would have wanted to get them in preference to the Quattro’s if the Marvels had come on the market earlier. It just so happens that one can compare INTRINSIC streaming “cost” between the Marvels and Quattro’s, and in proportion to approximately the same battery sizes and life, streaming in proportion to the intrinsic battery life for a device costs a device using BT Classic more battery life. That’s my only point. I’m not trying to sell anyone Quattro’s or say that they are superior to the Marvels in any way. I’m just trying to say BT LE is superior to BT Classic and it’s too bad the BT SIG group can’t get its act together and develop a better open Low Energy audio streaming standard that everyone can use. The Apple W1 chips and BT 4.2 LE energy streaming are real and clearly also demonstrates that a lot longer streaming range, great audio quality, and fantastic headphone battery life can be had with BT LE. They rightly don’t want to give their hard work away to the world and the rest of us just have to wait for something better - but the proprietary BT LE streaming protocols of HA manufacturers demonstrate it’s possible to go there for HA’s, too.

The Marvels are slightly longer, they have the same width, however the Quattros height is 12.1mm vs the Marvels 11.3mm. Maybe they just seem bigger to me since they have that boxy shape that was common years ago.

So in which capacity do you work for Resound? I only ask because you push the quattros more than a hearing specialist at the end of the month without a sale. You must have some sort of vested interest. You understand that it’s ok that people have an opinion and that differs from yours, right?

I have tried a bunch of hearing aids and I personally think the Marvels sound superior. I like that I can directly connect them to my Apple Watch and TV without the need of an intermediary device. I think Phonak understand innovation and stands behind their products. I recently went to 6 different audiologist, 5 offered Resound products. The majority of those 5 did everything they could to talk me out of the Quattros, due to constant repair issues and the general overall quality of the product. I trialed the Quattros for 3 weeks and I honestly thought my Starkey Halo 2 hearing aids from 3 years ago had a much richer sound. I also experienced constant issues with their connection to my iPhone. Multiple times the Bluetooth would drop out completely and wouldn’t reconnect. This may have been the pair I tried, but that would only further put into question the lack of quality. The Quattros had some things about them I liked, like the app. I’m sure I would have spent a lot of time during the first month or two fiddling with the sound to get them to sound as best they could, and then would have hardly ever touched it again. Due to the connectivity issues and the sound quality, I passed on them, and you know what, that’s OK! Just as it’s OK that someone else purchased the Evoke and another person decided to go with the OPN S.

The reason I came here was to gather more information about using my hearing aids. I definitely did not come here for the fan boy hard sell. Currently, at the time I’m looking for new hearing aids, the Marvels offer the most versatile connection options.

Just be forewarned that the Marvels are far from perfect in their Bluetooth implementation, like any other product. They only pair with one device at a time and they also drop connections.

In reply to @chrluc

@chrluc said:

You must have some sort of vested interest. You understand that it’s ok that people have an opinion and that differs from yours, right?

Unfortunately, you keep missing the point that it’s not a comparison of Marvel vs. Quattro that’s being made. Apart from everything else - and how much more clearly can I state that the Marvels are wonderful ’s, perhaps better than Quattro’s overall, that because these two HA’s happen to run different protocols when they stream, we can compare for each (intrinsically) how much of their own very similar battery lives do they use when streaming by one protocol vs. the other. A one big uncertainty is how did each HA manufacturer define “BT Streaming” but perhaps it’s fair to assume each used a decently “busy” audio file, streaming according to the SBC protocol at maximum bit rate. Maybe in terms of non-BT usage battery life, there could be some 30%, 40%, 70% difference in streaming depending on how each HA OEM defined streaming but not a 400% difference (2 hours batt life to stream 1 hr BT classive, 0.5 hrs batt life to stream 1 hr BT LE). These two HA’s both have very similar total batt lives.

Yes, there’s nothing wrong with having a different opinion. But when the opinion includes really erroneous facts - one HA is way bigger than the other in size and weight, one HA probably has a way bigger battery than the other, there are so many other possibilities in real life, one can never draw any conclusions about what any differences in streaming with BT Classic vs. BT LE are tellling you - that’s just blowing smoke. And the last resort in blowing smoke is to claim that I’m obviously saying all this just to promote ReSound over Marvels - that makes a lot of sense when I’ve said that Marvel is quite possibly the very best HA on the market now - but just happens to present a means of comparing BT Classic to BT LE for streaming purposes as the Marvel is the only HA so far to use BT Classic for streaming. If there were one brand that offered similar models with the only difference being one model used BT Classic, the other used proprietary BT LE, then the appearance of a crossbrand comparison could be avoided.

No matter what, you keep trying to convert anything that’s said about BT Classic vs. BT LE into a putdown of Phonak relative to GN ReSound (Marvel vs. Quattro). Nothing could be further from the truth but my replying is because you don’t deal in truth but in unsupported claims about HA differences (dimensions, weight, battery size) and snide innuendo about a person’s motivations and intelligence. Maybe it’s just possible, too, as I said that chewing more battery using BT Classic really isn’t that big of a deal. Most people probably don’t stream 4 hours a day and would like the ability to connect directly to everything via BT Classic. So maybe in the greater scheme of things, anything about BT LE being more power-efficient isn’t much of a concern for most HA users. Each person has to gauge their needs and decide for themselves and it would be great if all prospective HA users could try as many different brands as possible and pick whatever one works best for them and I think Phonak Marvels should be at the top of the list amongst brands to try in shopping literally and figuratively for the best fit for one’s needs.

BTW, on Classic vs. BT LE, the 3rd speaker today at Google’s session on (MFA) made a point of how much direct streaming from an Android phone to ’s will improve HA battery life vs. what a hit BT Classic would make on HA battery charge (unfortunately, his figures on streaming going from hours or days to week-long battery life weren’t very well-supported by specific references - seems implicit that he’s comparing the relative experience streaming to BT Classic over-the-ear headphones to HA’s using Android’s BT LE protocol). The guy said in his part of the talk that pairing, connection, streaming will be directly supported in Android Q - you won’t need the HA OEM’s smartphone app to do that part - but he then said (with a big wave of the hands) that Google is empowering HA OEM’s with their ASHA protocol to make “killer” smartphone apps.

The part on direct streaming & battery life begins at 28:33 in the presentation:

image

Related discussions