Auracast: the webinar and the results of the Pro Audito and ETH Zurich test

Summary

A summary of a test day on which participants, mostly with hearing loss, compared early Auracast equipment with existing assistive listening in several situations.

Key findings

• In the first test situation, 23 participants rated speech quality with Auracast as equal to or better than with an induction loop.
• After a guided tour, 31 of 32 participants rated the audio quality with Auracast, compared with no assistive system, as very good or good.
• The product tests found Auracast's advantage over FM and infrared to be that one personal receiver works with any Auracast system, while induction loops remained simpler to use because Auracast then required a smartphone to operate hearing devices.
• Presented latency as a central criterion for judging assistive listening systems.
• Reports that 23 participants rated Auracast's speech quality as equal to or better than the loop's; the summary does not give the total number of participants in that comparison.

Limits

A news summary of questionnaire results. The number of participants in the first situation, the equipment and the method are not given here; the full report appeared in Pro Audito's member magazine. First-generation equipment, tested in 2024.

Read the original

pro-audito.ch/news/auracast-so-war-das-webinar-und-das-sind-die-ergebnisse

Link checked 9 October 2026. We link to the original and do not host copies.

Cited in

• Auracast, hearing loop, infrared, RF or Wi-Fi: which suits which room?Disputed
• How do listeners find and join the right broadcast?Open
• What do listeners prefer, and how often do they use venue systems?Partly answered
• Should a venue keep its hearing loop when it adds Auracast, and can one system serve both?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/pro-audito-2024-eth-user-test/

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.