Auracast transmitter-receiver compatibility test (with…

Summary

Latency, frequency response and reception quality for many transmitter and receiver pairs. Latency was measured 25 August to 5 September 2025 and the hall reception test was run on 25 September 2025.

Key findings

End-to-end latency ranged from 26 ms to 205 ms depending on the transmitter-receiver pair. Among professional transmitters for installations, the lowest was 29 ms at 16 kHz; the highest to a hearing aid was 95 ms.
Hearing aids tended to be slower than other receivers. PIN code protection (a Broadcast Code) did not affect latency.
In a 75 x 57 m hall with an 18 m ceiling, with the transmitter deliberately placed for maximum distance and no significant event interference, 26 of the 51 pairs included in the overall evaluation scored 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 scale: dropouts and distortion from about 5 to 10 m and heavy dropouts or distortion from about mid-hall (about 40 m). 16 pairs scored 1 or 2, with reception throughout the hall.
Results depended strongly on the pair, for reasons the testers could not explain: one transmitter rated 1 (best grade, allowing very few dropouts) with its own brand's receiver and 5 (worst) with another receiver. Two professional receivers only received their own brand's transmitters.
Firmware changed results: one transmitter's latency at 16 kHz was 30 ms higher with a newer firmware version, and one earbud compatibility problem appeared to be resolved by firmware, with further testing required.
Its test-setup sheet says the test is not representative of other installations, because reflections from room surfaces play a critical role in reception quality and can vary significantly.
The linked workbook, Latencies - Test Setup!B2:B11, specifies pseudo-random full-range pink noise, transfer-function measurement with Smaart V8 and a QSC Q-SYS Core 8 flex (Designer V9.13), and one transmitter operating at a time. Its 10-second average applies to frequency-response measurement. The latency matrix B4:AJ14 contains 219 numeric readings; row 1 identifies transmitter and firmware, row 3 sample rate/mode, and column A receiver, firmware and assistant where used.
The matrix legend (A29:A33) distinguishes electrical line/AUX input and headphone-output measurement, acoustic microphone input and acoustic output measurement, and magnetic input through a telecoil. Columns R/S/T test the GN MultiMic+ through those three input routes respectively; AF is acoustic input and AI/AJ are acoustic input to SoundLinker. The receiver rows include dedicated receivers, hearing aids, headphones and earbuds. Non-numeric status cells are not zero-delay results.
Matrix comments B4, C4 and D4 say the Auri TX2N-to-RX1 latencies exceed earlier tests and other reports, and require further testing. Comment A5 says Bettear RTX latency can rise during a connection and reconnecting can restore a lower value; unannotated earlier cells may record either initial or elevated delay. The behaviour also occurred with receiver firmware 1.0.3. Comments on E5:G5, K5:L5, O5:P5 and X5 identify connections made available by that firmware.
For Bettear RTX, the matrix comments report these sequences in ms: G5 49 to 66; H5 33 to 41; I5 34 to 41; J5 36 to 43; K5 29 to 37 and sometimes 40; M5 34 to 42; O5 and P5 39 to 37 and sometimes 58; V5 36 to 44; Y5 42 to 45, then 54 and sometimes 60; AA5 44 to 45 and then 53; AF5 63 to 64; AH5 26 to 27 and then 28. O5 itself is 49, which conflicts with its comment starting at 39.
Other Bettear RTX comment ranges in ms are Z5 31-42, AB5 39-52, AC5 42-71, AD5 52-85, AE5 58-83 and AG5 26-47. Comments Y10 and Y11 report 70 to 73 ms for the earis MAX headphones and 69 to 72 ms for Moor Duo. AB3 and AC3 say all receivers dropped by 1 ms after several minutes and the matrix retains the earlier readings; H1 reports approximately 1 ms fluctuation for B-CASTER.
Conclusions A4/A9 attribute 29 ms at 16 kHz to a Williams receiver, but matrix K5 assigns 29 ms to Bettear RTX and K6 gives Williams 30 ms. Conclusions A10 says Williams 33 ms at 24 kHz, whereas L6 gives Williams 32 ms and L5 gives Bettear 33 ms. The receiver attribution in those conclusions is therefore unresolved.
Comments N1 and N3 disagree on whether the hardware tested was AurOEM or AuraLoop, though both refer to the same module; N1 limits AurLoop to 16/24 kHz. N3 reports a 30 ms increase at 16 kHz with firmware 2.0.0 relative to 1.2.0. Matrix AE7 gives Vivia 99 ms at 48 kHz despite A7 stating that hearing aids do not support 48 kHz. A12 says The Show receives 48 kHz by automatic connection, while selection through the phone Bluetooth menu fails.
The setup sheet declares measurements from 25 August to 5 September 2025. Some firmware notes and comment readings were edited later in September, without separate test dates. Those comment edit times do not establish when each measurement was made.
The reception worksheet (sheet 6 in the workbook, B2:P7) has 51 numerical ratings: 26 scored 4 or 5 and 16 scored 1 or 2. Two further ratings in H8 and J9 concern receivers restricted to their own brands; the note at A21 excludes those receivers from the overall evaluation. Thus the full matrix contains 53 ratings, with 51 in the main comparison. The setup sheet describes testing without significant interference from stage equipment, Wi-Fi, smartphones or similar event equipment.
In the latency worksheet comments, N3 says firmware 2.0.0 raised 16 kHz latency by 30 ms compared with 1.2.0. A9 says firmware 4.9.6 appears to resolve the earbud issue seen with 4.9.5 but requires further testing; this is a tentative observation, not a confirmed fix.
The Signal Reception - Rating sheet has 53 numeric pair ratings in B2:P9: nine at 1, eight at 2, nine at 3, eleven at 4 and sixteen at 5. Its A21 note excludes the two receivers that only received their own brand’s transmitters from the overall evaluation and means. Removing their two rated cells (H8=1 and J9=4) leaves 51 pairs, 16 rated 1 or 2 and 26 rated 4 or 5. Ratings 1 and 2 allow very few or occasional dropouts and low audio artefacts, rather than requiring uninterrupted reception.
The Signal Reception - Test Setup sheet (B2:B9) identifies BERNEXPO Stage in Bern, a 75 x 57 m hall with an 18 m ceiling, on 25 September 2025. An NTI MR-PRO supplied pink noise to each transmitter through its analogue input. The testers listened for dropouts, jitter and distortion as distance increased. The setup describes no significant interference from typical event equipment; it gives no audience count.
On Signal Reception - Rating (A13:A17), grade 1 allows no or very few dropouts and minimal artefacts throughout the room; grade 2 allows occasional dropouts or low artefacts. Grade 3 describes occasional dropouts or slight jitter or distortion from about 10 m, increasing around mid-room. Grade 4 describes dropouts and artefacts from about 5-10 m, frequent and significant by about 40 m, with possible manual reconnection. Grade 5 starts symptoms as early as 5 m, with severe symptoms beyond that and connection interruptions or extreme distortion or dropouts around mid-room. These are grade definitions, not separately measured maximum distances for every pair.
The rated transmitter columns in Signal Reception - Rating are B: Starkey TV-Streamer FW: not reported; C: Opus Auragate FW:2.1.0; D: Moor Moer SoundLinker FW:5.2.2; E: Arendi TV-Streamer Low Latency FW:0.8.1; F: GN TV-Streamer + FW:1.0.2.7; G: Bettear B-CASTER FW:1.0.3; H: Listen Auri TX2N FW:1.5; I: GN MultiMic+ FW:1.0.2.7; J: Williams Infinium FW:1.4.0; K: Arendi TV-Streamer High Reliability FW:0.8.1. Firmware is shown as recorded in the workbook.
Signal Reception - Rating, row 2: Starkey Edge FW: not reported; scored cells B2=1, C2=1, D2=1, E2=1, F2=1, G2=1, H2=5, I2=3, J2=3. Blank cells are not scored results.
Signal Reception - Rating, row 3: JBL Tour Pro 3 FW:4.9.6; scored cells C3=2, D3=1, E3=4, F3=3, H3=5, I3=2, J3=5. Blank cells are not scored results.
Signal Reception - Rating, row 4: GN Resound Vivia FW:10.21.2.1 via App iPhone 12; scored cells B4=2, C4=3, D4=1, E4=4, F4=4, G4=4, H4=4, I4=5, J4=4, K4=3. Blank cells are not scored results.
Signal Reception - Rating, row 5: Moer Moor Duo #21 FW:3.7.0 via BT Menu on Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5; scored cells B5=2, C5=2, D5=2, E5=3, F5=5, G5=5, H5=4, I5=5, J5=5. Blank cells are not scored results.
Signal Reception - Rating, row 6: Bettear RTX FW:1.0.1 & 1.0.3; scored cells C6=2, D6=5, E6=3, F6=4, G6=4, I6=5, J6=5. Blank cells are not scored results.
Signal Reception - Rating, row 7: Humantechnik earis MAX Headphone FW: 4.4.0; scored cells B7=2, C7=3, D7=4, E7=3, F7=5, G7=5, H7=5, I7=5, J7=5. Blank cells are not scored results.
Signal Reception - Rating, row 8: Listen Auri RX1 FW:1.5; scored cells H8=1. Blank cells are not scored results.
Signal Reception - Rating, row 9: Williams Infinium Rx FW: not reported; scored cells J9=4. Blank cells are not scored results.
The original web page states, before its workbook-tab list, that the tests had no manufacturer financial involvement and that manufacturers provided the products without charge as permanent or temporary loans.

Limits

Results apply only to the firmware versions tested, and some firmware changed during the three weeks of testing. The hall test used one deliberately distant transmitter position and no significant interference from event equipment; the testers say it is not representative of other rooms.

Read the original

pro-audito.ch/news/auracast-transmitter-receiver-compatibility-test

Link checked 14 October 2026. We link to the original and do not host copies.

Cited in

Cite this source

Pro Audito Schweiz. Auracast transmitter-receiver compatibility test (with data workbook). 6 October 2025. https://pro-audito.ch/news/auracast-transmitter-receiver-compatibility-test/ (accessed 14 October 2026).

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-2025-compat/

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.