Ok, go kick the cat (not really), take a long walk, whatever… Just don’t inflict your attitude on a bunch of people who- when all’s said and done- are trying to help you. Btw, stick around long enough and you’ll learn that some of those people whose input you’re disparaging know their stuff.
1 Like
@d_Wooluf, I don’t think I will “stick around” for any length of time if this pack mentality and intolerance of even the slightest criticism are the norms of this forum. Generally, it is a good practice (and indeed polite) to read and understand a post before responding to it. If reminding to this hurts anyone’s feelings, let that be.
You (in plural) practically killed this thread without contributing to it.
Well, you got your answer, so you can go I suppose.
If you’re still here, this is not an academic group where you can slap someone around for going off-topic or not reading your post carefully enough. It’s informal and mostly friendly. People will go off on tangents but good information gets exchanged as well.
Re Bluetooth. It’s not a monolithic thing. There are variants and different protocols within it, some of which are open, some proprietary.
And… a response to something you alluded to above: No, you can not use your phone as an intermediate device. For that to work, your phone would have to work as an Bluetooth ‘sink’. That functionality has never been included in either Apple or Android phones.
I will not respond to your personal comments, only to what’s on the subject…
Allusion or not, what you write is not correct, or not entirely correct. I am in the process of buying a BT guitar adapter (a BT transmitter) to my android. This, with an appropriate app, will enable me to listen (on my mobile) to what I play on the guitar. You can also possibly receive BT signals from your car stereo, i.e. use the phone as an “intermediate device” to listen to your car stereo.
These are clear examples of that while the mobile phones are not specifically designed to be BT receivers, they can do it if… and that’s what I want to find out, (and was hoping someone else has tried). If the mobile is able to receive BT signal from a BT transmitter (specific to a guitar or to a car stereo), then it may do the same from a simple audio transmitter connected to the TV. It may, or it may not. I will find this out, but I was hoping for some less personally heated and more relevant input about it.
If my correction / disagreement offends you, please report me… I will not be offended 
Well, what you wrote earlier made no sense as you referred to separate BT channel and TV streaming. TV (sound) streaming generally done via BT, and they go through a dedicated (main) program on a CI or HA.
As for your personal comment, there is no need to explain anything. I know what bullying is and what pack mentality is so as to recognize when I see it. Also, your arrogant patronizing sentence already tells something about how you roll here.
In the US, there are many devices that us the same unlicensed 2.4 GHz region of the RF spectrum other that Bluetooth and WiFi. In fact, if you search at the US FCC site for approvals for devices, you can find some information about TV streamers for hearing aids (and probably CI processors but I haven’t searched for that). The TV streamer that Oticon offers for their OPN series of hearing aids uses two different radios in the 2.4 GHz range and only one is listed as Bluetooth. The other has slightly different limits on the frequency and higher output power and operates using a spread spectrum technique. The approval documents for an Oticon hearing aid lists several non-bluetooth radios in the same region, one with a higher data rate than allowed by Bluetooth.
Some streamers may use only Bluetooth but a blanket statement that they all use only BT looks inaccurate based on documentation released as part of an approval process in the US.
Another factor that may bear paying attention to is the HA manufacturers may have tried to minimize the latency from input to the streamer to output of the hearing aid receiver. Some specify the latency - it may depend on the type of input (analog or digital optical) and encoding if digital (Oticon TV Adapter 3 for example). The typical inexpensive BT transmitter may not control latency as well as the streaming devices designed to operate with the hearing aids.
Many of those transmitters have support for AptX Low Latency. If the sink also supports that codec then latency is fine. That’s what I use to watch tv (my headphones have AptX LL). I don’t know of any intermediate devices that support AptX LL. Criminal that they don’t imo. I’ve tried using an intermediate device (Oticon Connect Clip) between my hearing aids and the transmitter and the latency was terrible.
Thanks, @biggar, indeed I was incorrect with the generalization, and the Cochlear TV streamer and the N7 may use a different frequency and connection protocol than BT. So the N7 may or may not communicate directly with a third party BT transmitter.
However, the N7 is recognized by my old Samsung N3 as well as the N9 as a BT device and a receiver as such. So, if a third party audio BT transmitter can stream to a mobile, then (theoretically) the N7 may receive the (TV) signals (with the expected latency) from the mobile, bypassing the need of the Cochlear TV streamer (with whatever frequency it uses).
I’ve read, and mentioned earlier here, that the Note 9 can receive BT signals transmitted from a car stereo as well as from a guitar adapter. So (again, theoretically) it should receive the same from other BT audio transmitters. Then, an appropriate app may transfer the signal to the N7.
What’s your thought about this…? Please point out any flaw.
Cheers
I think, the latency is a problem only with a remote mic, or, I expect, with a guitar adapter with an acoustic guitar. Indeed, the mic I used with my old Siemens HA was terrible. Fortunately, I could mute the HA so as to receive only what’s coming from the BT mic.
This, however, is not so much of an issue with the TV as the headphone port usually (or at least on all my devices) takes over from the speakers, so there is only one source of sound. Of course, other listeners may also need to use a headphone with a splitter.
After this sentence I stopped reading your post. Someone has already commented to that post without arrogance. Lighten up!
To all those who may follow this thread with genuine interest in the subject.
Yes, it is possible to transmit TV sounds to the N7 real-time by using only an Android phone without the Cochlear TV transmitter.
It is through WiFi. Silly enough, I did not consider this before. For this, the TV has to be attached to a PC / laptop as a monitor. This is my setup, anyway. The phone connects to the PC (the server) as a client via WiFi, and streams all sounds from the PC to the phone, real time while the movie / TV etc playing, and the sound (as any other sound) from the mobile is transmitted to the N7 via BT.
Problem solved.
I am still thinking / researching a BT alternative, as it would be much neater. So if anyone has an idea, or genuine constructive comment to my previous response to @biggar, and to my idea within that and a previous post, please come forward. The crux of the problem is to use a mobile (with an appropriate app) as a BT receiver and transmitter in the same time.
Due to the prior personal attacks against me, I may not hang out on this forum too much longer. So if there is any comment / question re. the WiFi version (which definitely works) let me know.
Cheers
Just to clarify that it’s not any Android phone that can do that but an ASHA one.
Yes, indeed. It’s a bit tricky with Android phones. I think version 5 with BT 4.0+ are prerequisite. However, I am not sure if all phones running Android 5 have ASHA. My Samsung N9 fortunately does, but I think (not entirely sure) all Samsung N10’s do. The test is: if Nucleus Smart App installs and connects, then its fine. Please correct, if not so.
I have no idea why the HA manufacturers don’t support aptX LL other than there appears to be an up-front cost and a per device cost to use aptX. Might there be an additional power drain for decoding aptX LL?
As for using the ConnectClip as the streamer for TV, there would be the latency in the Classic Bluetooth implementations along with the latency in the MFI connection to the aids. Oticon doesn’t seem to specify the latency due to the ConnectClip in documents I have found. They do specify the latency of the combination of the TV Adapter 3 and hearing aid as 25 msec for analog audio input and 28 msec for digital optical (TOSLINK) and 45 msec for Dolby Digital (digital optical). The latency for aptX LL is approximately 40 msec according to web page I found at apex.com so similar to the TV Adapter.
One way to get rid of the latency issue is to use wired headphones 
. I have some old Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro headphones with very large ear cups that seal well - nice passive noise reduction. My OPN S 1 aids don’t feedback with them so that is good except for the wire 
I have found that even with the fairly low 28 msec latency of the TV adapter (my ancient TV doesn’t do Dolby), the sound is better for me if I mute the HA microphones, or better, mute the TV/sound bar audio AND the HA mics and listen only to the streamed audio when listening to accented or soft voices. It seems that my ears/brain prefer a single input rather than two, one of which is delayed a bit. I have seen documents where the manufacturers of aids attempt to control the latency to minimize so-called spectral or timbre effect - one paper seemed to indicate that some HA users with open fittings could detect latencies longer that 10 msec. I don’t have a true open fitting as my aids are set to use a so-called bass dome with two tiny vents.
I pestered Dr. Cliff the video guy to ask Oticon about AptX LL on the Connect Clip. The answer came back ‘if he wants to watch tv he can buy the tv streamer’. That might be your answer right there. I don’t think the Qualcomm licensing fees would kill Oticon.
I sorted out some guy on Facebook’s first world problem by suggesting he buy a 5 metre headphone extension cable to watch tv with his headphones. He thought I was a genius. Loved it! I use a AptX LL transmitter and Plantronics Pro headset with AptX LL. My aids warble a bit inside the headset, but I can live with it. Another option is to get a pair of AptX LL-equipped transmitter/receivers and plug your wired headset into the receiver.
Agree. I find the two audio sources disturbing. I don’t like lip-synch issues either. I think I unconsciously read lips.
10 msec is the expected latency of LE Audio. I hope they achieve it.
I can’t really provide any reliable information as I don’t know anything about the N7 or CIs in general. The following is speculation as I also haven’t been able to find any real documentation about MFI and there are NDAs and real costs to get involved. But I read somewhere that Cochlear devices are MFI.
My GUESS is that many MFI hearing devices implement both Bluetooth and additional MFI specific protocols and use Bluetooth for pairing (and maybe other features) but use MFI specific protocols for streaming stereo audio to hearing devices. If that is the case, then a typical Bluetooth adapter may pair with the MFI hearing device but not stream correctly. The only way to find out for sure if streaming works is for someone to experiment with transmitters and report their findings to the community.
Good luck experimenting
1 Like
I’m fairly confident that mfi aids only have a low-energy radio for both streaming and hearing aid control. A standard Bluetooth transmitter wouldn’t even see the aids.
Not so. Here’s Cochlear compatibility chart which I’m not convinced is current. Sound Processor and App Compatibility
App compatibility is not synonymous with streaming compatibility.
ASHA requires Android 10 or higher, BT 5.0 or higher AND the phone manufacturer and carrier choosing to implement. I think you’re referring to Samsung S9 and S10? S9 implementation is inconsistent as I know one forum member whose S9 didn’t work. S10 and higher seem pretty consistent. Google’s Pixel 3 and higher seem to work and at least with Resound hearing aids OnePlus 7 supposedly works. Not sure if compatibility with Resound’s HAs assures compatibility with Cochlear or not. I would think so, but I’ve learned with compatibility stuff to not assume anything.
I was referring to Galaxy Note 9 as N9. I noticed a typo in my post… it is Android 10 (not 5) what it has to run. The Cochlear website’s list for Android phones is as good as it can be. Probably all Note 10, or S10 will be compatible, but not all Note 9 (and have no idea about S9). It is because the different updates of the operating system, as a Cochlear tech explained to me some weeks ago. That’s why I think, the benchmark is whether or not the Nucleus smart up installs correctly and connect with the processor. It’s a few minutes to find out.
Not to belabor a point but app compatibility is much broader than streaming compatibility. The app only requires Android 7 and above. The app only requires Low Energy BT data packets (not full streaming capability)
2 Likes