I wonder if this has anything to do with how the bandwidth is automatically decreased when taking a call vs when you're just playing audio. Less bandwidth means a slower but more robust connection or something like that?

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think BT devices do frequency hopping. The audio bandwidth is reduced just because the mic signal is added and has to share the connection. There's no change on the physical connection.

(Now, it would be great if there was some frequency hopping and your phones could reserve a full FM channel instead of messing with digital compression.)

[–] atocci@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That decreased bandwidth would still help to maintain a digital connection though, wouldn't it? There'd be a weaker and slower connection as the devices get further apart, so I was thinking less demand on the connection would keep them from dropping it.

I don't think it's the same as what you meant exactly, but I looked it up and Bluetooth does hopping between 2.402 and 2.480 GHz.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

After you establish a connection, it doesn't hop anymore.

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think they're talking about frequency hopping, just using a thinner datastream. Smaller packets are less likely to be dropped perhaps?

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, if you transmit less data in total, your odds of having a random problem reduce. But not much, because electromag interference tends to last for relatively long times and you still need to communicate often for minimizing latency.

That is, unless the problem is a saturated channel. If that's the case, your situation may improve much more by sending less data.

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

Pretty good idea! Yeah, maybe the half duplex codec can connect with a weaker signal.

Or something. I don't know that much about the protocol.