1 Like
Miguel Aranda de Toro is a cool guy. I’ve seen a couple of his over-the-top videos before, and they’re always quite amusing and tongue-in-cheek. Interesting that he’s now titled “Senior Product Marketing Manager,” whereas, in earlier videos, I thought he claimed to be a sound engineer working on ReSound development.
On the streaming range, that’s interesting. I hadn’t noticed the increased range. I still find the Omnias subject to interference and dropouts while walking around the neighborhood streaming a podcast to my Omnias with my phone in a right horizontal belt holster - the holster may have some metal inserts built into it for phone screen protection. In particular, I deliberately walk with lots of back-and-forth raised arm movement (elbows bent, forearms horizontal) to increase my energy expenditure). If I turn the phone volume up enough, I can hear a slight warble in the background as my right forearm movement “blocks” and unblocks the BT signal when it comes between and leaves the area between my phone holster and my head. Some of these things, I’m not sure how much the particular version of iOS matters, too. Aranda de Toro is not using a phone in his test but rather some sort of intensity meter. I don’t have Optimize MFi Connection checked, either, under the More tab in the Smart 3D app.
But I do enjoy the extended range of MFi connectivity in being able to run to the frig in the kitchen or the bathroom during a TV commercial break and still be aware of when the commercials are ending, and when it’s time to get back to the program I was watching. The Omnia BT range is decidedly better than the Phonak Lumity BT range in my experience.
I am having the same issue on my nucleus 8 sound processor and resound Omnia when walking with it with my Android phone,… both are running GN LEWIS 7 radio chip platform
This is one of the disadvantages of MFi and (I suspect) Bluetooth LE audio vs Bluetooth Classic. Both are lower power signals with longer battery life but more subject to interference and drop offs. Bluetooth Classic provides a more reliable connection but chews batteries. This is what I have noticed going from Resound Quattro to Phonak Lumity. Omnia was the same.
Jordan
2 Likes
When I was trialing both the Lumitys and the Omnias, I’d say they were about the same for connectivity stability in BT streaming of podcasts (mentioned in a previous post in the Omnia vs. Lumity thread, I think). There are certain locations/houses in the neighborhood where there seems to be a lot of EMI. Now I’m really putting my own Omnias to the test in weather that’s colder now than during my HA trials. I’m wearing a pullover cap plus a parka hood, and the phone is in its holster under a thick wool sweater and my down parka. If I switch to Optimize MFi Connection, the connection is usually much better, but I’m usually too lazy or distracted to think of doing that. If I carry the phone in front of me in my hand, the connection is rock solid except going by the EMI areas/houses.
Phonak must have greatly improved classic BT connectivity from the days of the Marvels. If you look at the forum posts back then, there were lots of complaints about outdoor connectivity to the Marvels because of relaying the signal from the master HA to the slave HA with a lack of reflective surfaces in very open areas. In contrast, with ReSound aids, it’s more of an issue, I think, for both HA’s to get the signal from the phone. If my right HA is the master for the Lumity and I wear my phone on my right, everything is peachy keen for the phone to master HA signal, but there’s still the ear-to-ear challenge, which Phonak now seems to have largely overcome. With MFi, I do wonder if it’s not upgrades of iOS that’s the problem. I remember my Quattros as being a lot more stable than the Omnias or the Marvels, as described in past forum posts. And I started out with my Quattros with a Galaxy Note 8 running Android 8 using a Phone Clip+ clipped to my neck with good access to both ears- so maybe the switch from an older version of Android using a streaming accessory to an iPhone 14 Pro Max with the Omnias where I have to depend on direct phone-to-HA BT communication has something to do with BT connectivity, too?
1 Like
Think this was mainly down to the Audeo M range as my Naida M70 SP BTE Aids have never dropped out even in a middle of the field. I can only think it’s because my HAs are much bigger so antenna is bigger.
This test is a joke. Instead of putting the HA in his own ears, he makes a big show with this dummy called Chris. The “meter” only shows if the sound is still being received. He uses a normal phone as a source with a direct line of sight.
We can all do this ourselves, without a meter.
In the free field, the biggest problem is that the signal cannot be reflected anywhere.
In addition, our body is a big obstacle because it additionally attenuates the signal.
My own findings with my Phonak Paradises:
-
First-year, with Samsung Galaxy S7: When the signal got bad, I had to hold the phone in front of me, or put it in my breast pocket for improvement. Since my jacket pocket is on the left I also changed the BT master to the left HA because of this.
The phone in the back pants pocket was a no go. -
Then I changed to Samsung Galaxy S22: EDIT: It is much better now, but I still cannot keep it in the back pants pocket.
I conclude:
The phone also has an influence on signal strength and range.
I Agree. With the Paradises, I never noticed a problem relaying the signal from the master to the slave HA.
EDIT:
Now I did the test myself:
Outdoor, free field without obstacles, phone horizontally on a wooden pole about 1.5m above ground, 0°C (also freezing cold… 
)
Galaxy S22:
- max. 25m with my head in between the phone and master HA.
- max. 50m with free line of sight between the phone and master HA.
Galaxy S7:
- max. 15m with my head in between the phone and master HA.
- max. 25m with free line of sight between the phone and the master HA
1 Like
No way of telling yet because no-one’s tried it, but LE Audio’s supposed to be quite robust. The nature of the connection is that if a packet doesn’t reach the destination within the time frame it’s supposed to, it just gets ignored. So as the connection gets degraded by distance or interference, streaming quality will degrade gracefully. There’s also negotiation that goes on so that source and destination will agree on best channels to use, bit rate, and an appropriate level of power in the transmitting device. It’s a type of connection that was designed for streaming. BLE as used by mfi was designed for short bursts of communication.
2 Likes
No, I disagree in bluetooth 5.2, they introduce a concept of isohronous channel to core spec. The transfer layer have change…
One key advantage expected from Bluetooth LE Audio is how things sound when you’re farther from the audio source device. The new spec is supposed to be better at dealing with packet loss, so audio sounds better in these situations.
“Previously, the Bluetooth LE protocol has always ensured that all sent packets successfully make it across the link through acknowledgments. If a packet is not acknowledged, it is either resent until successful or the connection is terminated,” Nordic’s blog post explains.
“[Bluetooth LE Audio’s] Isochronous Channels enable discarding packets that are no longer relevant—which is often the case in an audio stream where a ‘late’ packet has no use for the receiver. This is done by limiting the possible retransmission time for a packet, to guarantee it is still useful to the receiver.”
Bluetooth LE Audio’s LC3 codec is supposed to better leverage the processing power of today’s chipsets for more effective audio stream compression alongside on-the-fly packet-loss concealment (as required) to avoid skipping, as per the blog.
Further, SoundGuys expects LC3 to work similarly to Qualcomm’s aptX Adaptive and Sony’s LDAC codecs by reducing quality when there’s a poor connection, like when you’re far away from the audio source device or in an area with a lot of wireless devices.
3 Likes