Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1.    #1  
    I'm sure this has been asked and answered 100 times already, but it seems that the 700p doesn't support A2DP profiles.

    What advantage does the BT 1.2 on the 700p have over the v1.1 on the 650?

    Thanks in advance!!
  2. #2  
    The only thing I've noticed firsthand is that the delay from when a call comes it to when it is sent to my BT earpiece has decreased from 1 - 3 seconds to being nearly instantaneous.

    I've also heard (but have not confirmed) that you can have two BT devices active at a time. The only valid use case I know for doing this is if you have TomTom using a BT GPS unit, you would still be able to pick up a call using your BT headset. This is not possible (as far as I've experienced and read elsewhere) on the Treo 650 using BT 1.1. I do have both, so I plan on testing this out in the near future.

    But I'm not sure why they chose to NOT support A2DP in the 700p unless there are just too many challenges with getting stereo BT headsets working at this time. Maybe they will release support for A2DP in a ROM update? Well, I can dream that they will.
  3. #3  
    The headset plays a large roll in how quickly a call is transferred. My AX takes 1-3 seconds to transfer on my 650 but the IV835 is immediate.

    I believe that the only upgrade in 1.2 is that it can hop frequencies to reduce the amount of interference from things like WiFi or cordless phones.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by 2000 Man
    The headset plays a large roll in how quickly a call is transferred. My AX takes 1-3 seconds to transfer on my 650 but the IV835 is immediate.

    I believe that the only upgrade in 1.2 is that it can hop frequencies to reduce the amount of interference from things like WiFi or cordless phones.
    That may be true, but since I'm using the same headset with both my Treo 650 and 700p, I can say that the calls transfer to the same headset MUCH faster on the 700p (whether that is due to BT 1.2 or something else I can't say for sure). It's possible that there is a headset that gets calls faster from the 650 than the 700p, but I haven't seen any reports of that being the case.
  5. #5  
    I don't think that's a function of BT 1.2 though.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by JAndrews
    I've also heard (but have not confirmed) that you can have two BT devices active at a time. The only valid use case I know for doing this is if you have TomTom using a BT GPS unit, you would still be able to pick up a call using your BT headset. This is not possible (as far as I've experienced and read elsewhere) on the Treo 650 using BT 1.1. I do have both, so I plan on testing this out in the near future.
    Could you please post the results of your test to this thread. This alone would be worth the upgrade. (I can go to a Bluetooth Keyboard.)
  7. #7  
    I've noticed the following differences between my former 650 and my new 700.. These differences are noticeable on two different BT Headsets (Moto HS850 and Moto H700).

    1) On the 650, with both headsets, the phone would start to ring, after roughly 2 ring cycles, the headset would start doing it's thing letting you know your phone is ringing

    However, on the 700, with the same 2 headsets, the headsets start doing their thing before the phone itself starts ringing or vibrating (if set to do so).

    2) On the 650, with these same 2 headsets, after pressing the button to answer a ringing call, or after placing a call, there would be a 2 second or so lag before audio would come through the headset.

    However, on the 700, It appears that:

    on my Moto HS850, I hit the button, the call answers, I hear the whirl tone and everything is a go. Not really a lag, maybe 1/2 second, just long enough for the headset to make it's noise letting you know you're online.

    on my Moto H700, I hit the button, I hear a beep instantly at the same time I hear this beep I can already hear the call in the background, so essentially, right when I hit the button, It's already ready to go.

    --

    I do think the difference between BT 1.1 and 1.2 is the fact that 1.1 the heatset is "associated" with the phone, when a call comes in the phone contacts the headset and tells it there's a call. However, I think with BT 1.2, the headset and the phone stay fully connected 100% of the time, as long as they're within range of each other, therefore, there isn't a connection lag time, since they're always connected and ready to rumble.
    Joshua Miller
    jemiller@jem.phoenix.az.us
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalJEM
    I do think the difference between BT 1.1 and 1.2 is the fact that 1.1 the heatset is "associated" with the phone, when a call comes in the phone contacts the headset and tells it there's a call. However, I think with BT 1.2, the headset and the phone stay fully connected 100% of the time, as long as they're within range of each other, therefore, there isn't a connection lag time, since they're always connected and ready to rumble.
    Please post a reference for this claim. As far as I can find, this is untrue.

    The main advantages of 1.2 over 1.1 are the adaptive frequency hopping and better packet processing for clearer transmissions. You also get the ability to connect your phone to multiple BT connections (enhanced QoS).
  9. pdadoc's Avatar
    Posts
    407 Posts
    Global Posts
    417 Global Posts
    #9  
    I use the original palm treo BT headset, as well as a BT speakerphone in the car. They both connect much faster than with my prior 650 (just about instantaneous now). I believe I did read that was another advantage of 1.2.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdadoc
    I use the original palm treo BT headset, as well as a BT speakerphone in the car. They both connect much faster than with my prior 650 (just about instantaneous now). I believe I did read that was another advantage of 1.2.
    Where exactly did you read this? Link please.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandorr
    Could you please post the results of your test to this thread. This alone would be worth the upgrade. (I can go to a Bluetooth Keyboard.)
    Just completed the test and everything works great! Here are the details:

    1) Started TomTom and connected to my BT GPS (GlobalSat BT-338), obtained a GPS fix and set a navpoint in TomTom (which proceeded to tell me to "Turn Left" from my office.

    2) Turned on my Treo BT Headset. Just left the Treo running TomTom and didn't bother to confirm the BT headset and the Treo were linked...just assumed they were.

    3) Called my Treo from my landline. My Treo started to ring and almost immediately after my BT headset started to ring.

    4) I answered the call using my BT headset and the call picked up almost immediately. Within a couple of seconds the Treo switched from TomTom to the phone application.

    5) Hung up the call using my headset and then had to manually re-start TomTom. It quickly started up and got the GPS signal. Just took a few seconds to update the navigation plans.

    I repeated the test twice with the same results.

    I have to say that I'm quite happy that this works since not being able to use my BT headset while the treo was in the dash cradle in TomTom mode made things a real pain. Now it's working exactly like it should.

    There is one downside I noticed with TomTom on the Treo 700p....the 5-way navigation pade doesn't see to navigate the TomTom screens like it used to on my 650. I used to be able to tap the scree with my finger and then pick an option using the 5-way pad. Now I have to tap the screen for everything. Hopefully they'll fix this soon, but I'm not holding my breath. In any case, I think the tradeoff is worthwhile.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by 2000 Man
    Please post a reference for this claim. As far as I can find, this is untrue.

    The main advantages of 1.2 over 1.1 are the adaptive frequency hopping and better packet processing for clearer transmissions. You also get the ability to connect your phone to multiple BT connections (enhanced QoS).
    Whether or not it has anything to do with BT 1.2 vs 1.1 or is just a different BT implementation in the 700p, I can support 2000 Man's statement that it appears that the headset and phone stay fully connected 100% of the time.

    I say this because if your headset is turned off, the Treo 700p's BT indicator is the standard BT=ON white symbol on a blue background (just like the 650).

    But unlike the 650, as soon as you turn on your BT headset, the 700p BT indicator biefly switches to the "BT=ACTIVE" symbol (kind of an inverted ON symbol) and then switches to a light blue picture of a headset indicating it has paired with your headset. This remains on as long as they are within range of each other. If you turn your headset off, the BT indicator switches back to the BT=ON indicator.

    If you answer a call with the BT Headset, the headset indicator turns dark blue and then goes back to light blue.

    My one concern though is that while the headset and phone are connected, I wonder if this consumes more power than just being in an "ON" state. I've been doing some testing today to see how much or little power it consumes with minimal usage and BT/IR turned off since I've been having pretty poor battery life. So far the battery life has been pretty good with BT and IR turned off, but even my testing with BT didn't seem to make a big difference.
  13. #13  
    One of the big advantages of BT 2.0 is a power-saving feature, along with higher data rates and improved voice clarity.

    I think that the quicker connection may be a function of the BT stack itself and not the standard (1.1 vs 1.2).
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by JAndrews
    Just completed the test and everything works great! Here are the details:
    Maybe I am misunderstanding your post. The question is; can you use two BT accessories at the same time. IE: Can you use BT TomTom while on a BT headset phone call. From your test it sounds like the 700p can switch between BT accessories, but not use more than one at the same time.

    Could you start a BT phone call and then launch TomTom?

    I am asking because I am thinking of replacing my Universal Keyboard with the Bluetooth keyboard, and still want to be able to use the Bluetooth headset while typing notes. (I can do this with the Palm universal keyboard, but I like the looks of the BT keyboard on Palm's website.)
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by 2000 Man
    Please post a reference for this claim. As far as I can find, this is untrue.

    The main advantages of 1.2 over 1.1 are the adaptive frequency hopping and better packet processing for clearer transmissions. You also get the ability to connect your phone to multiple BT connections (enhanced QoS).
    If you RE-READ my post, I said "I think".. I never said that it WAS in fact the difference. It was my observation, not something I claimed was true.

    And it appears that this guy agree's with me as HE HAS OBSERVED the same behavior:
    Quote Originally Posted by pdadoc
    I use the original palm treo BT headset, as well as a BT speakerphone in the car. They both connect much faster than with my prior 650 (just about instantaneous now). I believe I did read that was another advantage of 1.2.
    ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JAndrews
    Whether or not it has anything to do with BT 1.2 vs 1.1 or is just a different BT implementation in the 700p, I can support 2000 Man's statement that it appears that the headset and phone stay fully connected 100% of the time.
    You mean my statement right? I don't recall 2000 man ever stating that, just him attacking me stating that
    Joshua Miller
    jemiller@jem.phoenix.az.us
  16. #16  
    And? Again, what you observed doesn't seem to have anything to do with BT 1.1 vs BT 1.2. I posted the differences between the two standards.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by 2000 Man
    And? Again, what you observed doesn't seem to have anything to do with BT 1.1 vs BT 1.2. I posted the differences between the two standards.
    I seriously don't understand how you can say that but whatever..

    Every BT 1.1 phone I've used (not just the Treo) has acted the way the 650 does.

    The 700p with it's BT 1.2 acts the same way with the headset connection as my Samsung A900 which also has BT 1.2

    Going by that, How now, can you say that it has nothing to do with 1.1 vs 1.2

    2 (or more) different phones with 1.1 act the same, and 2 different phones with 1.2 act the same.. Hmm.. corralation? I think so.

    ** and wether or not it's directly correlated to the 1.2 standard or not should really matter. If phones with 1.2 are implimented the same, and operate the same, then yes, it can be said that what we're talking about here is a difference between 1.1 and 1.2, even though it's not "part of the standard". It's still a difference.
    Joshua Miller
    jemiller@jem.phoenix.az.us
  18. #18  
    BT 1.2

    On November 5, 2003, the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) released version 1.2 of the Bluetooth Specification. While this announcement probably went unnoticed by all but the most hardcore geeks, the new specification will usher in a new generation of products that will have better audio quality, coexist better with Wi-Fi, and connect faster and more reliably.

    The goal of version 1.2 of the Bluetooth Specification was not to introduce new functionality, but rather to improve on the functionality from the previous version of the specification, version 1.1. These improvements target two fundamental areas, quality and speed, and do so in ways that are transparent to the end user. This means that the user doesn't have to re-learn how to use Bluetooth version 1.2 products.

    The improvements in version 1.2 can be summed up as answers to the biggest complaints we hear about Bluetooth products:

    Why can't my Bluetooth-enabled mobile phone find my Bluetooth-enabled headset?
    Why is there a popcorn-like sound in my headset some of the time?
    Why does my Wi-Fi disconnect or slow down when I synchronize my PDA?
    A major complaint about Bluetooth-enabled products has been ease of use. The new 1.2 features allow users to quickly and more easily use products enabled with Bluetooth wireless technology.

    First, let's look at why the mobile phone had problems finding the headset.
    When you buy a new Bluetooth headset to go along with your Bluetooth-enabled phone, the first thing you do is pair the devices. Pairing involves a number of steps, the first being discovering the new device. When you go to the discovery menu in your phone it starts a procedure called inquiry, which finds all Bluetooth devices within range. Unfortunately, in Bluetooth 1.1, inquiry had about a 90% success rate and took up to 10 seconds. For most people 10 seconds is a very long time and it is even longer (and frustrating) when the device isn't found and you have to repeat the process.

    This problem is solved in Bluetooth 1.2 by a new feature called enhanced inquiry. Enhanced inquiry not only makes discovery nearly 100% reliable, it also shortens the time to a maximum of 5 seconds (although many 1.2 devices will still try for 10 seconds for backwards-compatibility reasons). This feature will probably not be listed on the side of the box, but every Bluetooth 1.2 product will support it. Since enhanced inquiry is also backwards compatible with previous versions of the Bluetooth specification, that new Bluetooth 1.2 headset you buy will work better with your old mobile phone.

    Enhanced inquiry is one of four new features in a group called Faster Connections that are all designed to significantly speed up discovery and connection times. The second feature in this category is interlaced inquiry scan. Interlaced inquiry scan speeds up the discovery process by 2x to a maximum of 2.5 seconds and can be as fast as 25 milliseconds. Similarly, interlaced page scan is designed to speed up connection times by 2x.

    Not all products will support or use interlaced page and inquiry scan since they use more power and therefore reduce battery life. However, users will notice the faster reaction times in the products that do feature these enhancements. For products that spend a very small part of their life in a discoverable mode, such as mobile phones and headsets, the interlaced inquiry scan feature is very valuable in making discovery of these devices nearly instantaneous with minimal impact to normal battery life.

    These features will also enable the creation of new uses for Bluetooth wireless technology including mobile commerce where fast action speeds are critical. Future applications could include using your Bluetooth-enabled mobile phone to pay for groceries or to get a soda or snack from a vending machine.

    The techy sounding RSSI with inquiry results feature is designed to help user interfaces organize the discovered devices by received signal strength. This is most useful for products like mobile phones that have a small number of lines of text per page. By listing found devices in order of decreasing signal strength, the chance that the desired device is on the first page is high.

    Next, let's look at why Wi-Fi disconnects or slows down when using nearby Bluetooth devices.

    Bluetooth wireless technology is a frequency hopped time division duplex system. What this means is that every time a device transmits or receives, it calculates (pseudorandomly) a new frequency to use within 79MHz of the 2.4GHz ISM band (the frequency hopped part), and only one device is allowed to transmit at a time (the time division duplexing part). Bluetooth 1.1 devices were required to hop over 79MHz at a rate of up to 1600 times per second. This made Bluetooth devices very robust in the presence of interference.

    Unfortunately, some other technologies that use the 2.4GHz ISM band (notably 802.11b and g) were not designed to handle interference well and the techniques that made Bluetooth devices robust caused these other technologies to suffer significant performance degradation near Bluetooth devices. Since Bluetooth wireless technology was the new kid in the ISM band, the Bluetooth SIG invented Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH).

    AFH is probably one of the most publicized and anticipated of the new features. Simply, AFH gives Bluetooth 1.2 devices the ability to use fewer than 79 channels if the device detects that there is interference on some of the frequencies. This means that Bluetooth 1.2 devices can avoid interference sources in the ISM band such as Wi-Fi, cordless phones, or microwave ovens. By avoiding interference, Bluetooth 1.2 devices can be a good neighbor and avoid interfering with 802.11. AFH also benefits Bluetooth 1.2 devices since they avoid interference that would have reduced its throughput or caused noticeable audio glitches.

    Since AFH is a mandatory part of Bluetooth 1.2, all devices will support it. However, while AFH is part of the Bluetooth 1.2 specification, a channel assessment algorithm (which determines what interference exists in the ISM band and which channels to use) is not specified. This is a place where manufacturers will innovate and will be one of the key differentiations between Bluetooth 1.2 devices.

    Finally, what about getting rid of that popcorn noise in my headset?
    Bluetooth audio was designed to be robust, but when there is significant interference in the area, the user may hear some popcorn-like sounds. This is the sound of data being lost or garbled due to interference. A new feature called Extended SCO (eSCO) fixes this annoying problem by adding an error-detection capability to the eSCO (audio) packets. Additionally, when an eSCO packet is received in error by either side of the link, the receiving device can request that the packet is sent again (called a retransmission mechanism). Under all but the worst interference cases, audio using eSCO will sound perfect.

    eSCO is an optional feature, but is anticipated to be mandated at the product level by any device supporting audio (i.e., mobile phones, headsets, and automotive hands-free kits).

    In addition to improved user experience features, version 1.2 includes one additional feature, L2CAP Flow and Error Control, and many, many updates to the specification to make it more readable as well as to make the specification compliant with IEEE language rules.

    The Flow and Error Control enhancement provides two additional modes of operation in the L2CAP layer of the Bluetooth protocol stack. The first is a generic Flow Control mechanism that profiles can use for situations such as when a printer runs out of paper and flow of the data to the printer has to be suspended until the condition is cleared. The Error Control mode provides a protocol at L2CAP to check for errors and cause retransmissions to recover from these errors. The application of this feature is mainly for large file transfers that occur in image transfers or printing.

    All of the new features in version 1.2 of the Bluetooth Specification address at least one aspect of reliability that is tangible to the end user: Bluetooth 1.2 devices are discovered more reliably (enhanced inquiry), their audio quality will be better (eSCO and AFH), and they'll have better reliability and performance under interference conditions (AFH and L2CAP Flow and Error Control).

    In addition, Bluetooth 1.2 devices can have longer battery life, cause less interference to neighboring systems, and have fewer dropped connections and a better overall Bluetooth user experience.

    Bluetooth 1.2 features will add value across all market segments from mobile phones and headsets to notebook PCs and computer peripherals. Silicon Wave's current generation of UltimateBlue single chip ICs are fully compliant to the Bluetooth 1.2 specification. The first Bluetooth 1.2ヨcompliant products will be available in the first quarter of 2004.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by bioguy
    BT 1.2

    Enhanced inquiry is one of four new features in a group called Faster Connections that are all designed to significantly speed up discovery and connection times. The second feature in this category is interlaced inquiry scan. Interlaced inquiry scan speeds up the discovery process by 2x to a maximum of 2.5 seconds and can be as fast as 25 milliseconds. Similarly, interlaced page scan is designed to speed up connection times by 2x.
    hmmm.. as fast as 25 milliseconds... wow.. that's almost instantaneous.. isn't it? !!

    I think the above statement, where ever bioguy got it from, confirms my observation. I'm guessing the above post means that my observation is part of the 1.2 standard....
    Joshua Miller
    jemiller@jem.phoenix.az.us

Posting Permissions