Sound quality comparison of Auracast and teleloop systems in a real-world environment

Summary

Single-blind comparison of Auracast and a hearing loop through the same hearing aids in a 16-person meeting room.

Key findings

• 18 listeners with mild to moderate hearing loss and 18 with normal hearing; ReSound Vivia hearing aids with power domes and the hearing-aid microphones switched off; an Ampetronic Auri transmitter and an Ampetronic perimeter loop, matched in loudness with a 1 kHz tone.
• Listeners with hearing loss preferred Auracast in 76% of trials and gave it a mean sound-quality rating of 7.9 versus 5.9 for the loop, on a 1 to 10 scale; listeners with normal hearing preferred Auracast in 99% of trials.
• Measured through the same hearing aid on a manikin, the telecoil path rolled off from about 300 Hz and was more than 10 dB below the Auracast path at 200 Hz and up to 40 dB below at 100 Hz. The authors link this to the high-pass filter commonly applied to telecoils to reduce hum.
• Its abstract says Auracast "may therefore support more rapid, widespread adoption than teleloop systems", and its conclusions speak of faster and wider proliferation of Auracast compared with loops.
• Methods, pages 3–4: the aids were fitted to individual hearing loss, power domes were selected to maximise bandwidth, and an audiologist used ReSound Smart 3D to switch between Auracast and teleloop while participants were unaware of the active technology. The study did not compare default and adjusted fittings, different microphone mixes or independent joining.
• Frequency response measurement (p. 4) used a separate baseline manikin measurement: the same hearing aid unit for both paths, fitted with 15 dB flat insertion gain. The listening participants were fitted to their individual hearing losses. Speech perception results (p. 6) explicitly describe subjective ratings rather than a test of measured speech understanding.

Limits

Manufacturer-funded and run at the manufacturer's premises; one small room; one hearing aid model; hearing-aid microphones off, so room sound was not part of the test; subjective ratings rather than measured speech understanding.

Read the original

centerforhearingaccess.org/uploads/resound-jespersen

Link checked 13 October 2026. We link to the original and do not host copies.

Cited in

• Which hearing devices can receive which systems?Open
• Auracast, hearing loop, infrared, RF or Wi-Fi: which suits which room?Disputed
• What do listeners prefer, and how often do they use venue systems?Partly answered
• Are telecoils switched on and set up well enough for loops to work?Not reliable yet
• Are hearing aids set up well enough to use Auracast in venues?Partly answered
• How good is the sound each system delivers: bandwidth, codecs and speech understanding?Partly answered

Cite this source

The accessed date is when this library last checked the link; use the date you read it. To point readers to this summary instead, link to https://assistivelisteningknowledgebase.org/evidence/jespersen-2026/

Every finding here cites its source, and who funded each source is labelled. This site does not recommend products. Found an error or a missing study? Suggest a correction.