05-23-2016 07:17 PM
271 ... 91011
tools
  1. Snoke's Avatar
    I will gladly take these so called lags in info. for the freedom of not having to wear the chest strap. The beauty of the band is that it is very accurate, based on many articles and peoples feedback on this site, and you have it with you at all times. Its a single tool. It doesn't need a strap or even your phone. You can be in the mood and just go for a run/hike/ride whatever and still capture your GPS route along with your HR. Great tool if you ask me.
    08-04-2015 08:07 AM
  2. DroidUser42's Avatar
    Well, I think that's mostly down to optical HR monitors in general, not just the Band.
    I beg to differ. I found that by wearing my Band in a strange way, I could get accurate spot readings. Contrast that to my prior test on the previous page. The key seems to be to locate the right spot on the arm. If I had a way to move my HR sensor to a different location on the strap, I probably could solve my problem.
    08-04-2015 03:20 PM
  3. gadgetrants's Avatar
    I will gladly take these so called lags in info. for the freedom of not having to wear the chest strap. The beauty of the band is that it is very accurate, based on many articles and peoples feedback on this site, and you have it with you at all times. Its a single tool. It doesn't need a strap or even your phone. You can be in the mood and just go for a run/hike/ride whatever and still capture your GPS route along with your HR. Great tool if you ask me.
    I can't say for sure if this ^^^ reflects the average user's experience, but it's what I see on a daily basis. I also agree 100%.

    I know I've already said it a thousand times, but if we remember that it's a very young technology and this is a first-effort, it's a damn good device. The health/activity/wearables sector will only get better in the next 5 years.

    -Matt
    08-04-2015 03:41 PM
  4. DroidUser42's Avatar
    The health/activity/wearables sector will only get better in the next 5 years.
    What did they say about MS software? Wait for version 3? (As in Windows 3, DOS 3, ....)
    08-04-2015 03:43 PM
  5. gadgetrants's Avatar
    What did they say about MS software? Wait for version 3? (As in Windows 3, DOS 3, ....)
    And maybe the Surface too? Third time?s the charm with Microsoft?s Surface

    -Matt
    08-04-2015 04:08 PM
  6. hagjohn's Avatar
    I tested my heart rate when I was at the doctors office. My band was one number off of their reading.
    08-04-2015 08:07 PM
  7. DroidUser42's Avatar
    I tested my heart rate when I was at the doctors office. My band was one number off of their reading.
    Yes, "at rest" it's fine. But for some, it all goes haywire when trying to take readings while walking/moving/exercising.
    08-04-2015 08:51 PM
  8. Will Gilliland's Avatar
    Well, I think that's mostly down to optical HR monitors in general, not just the Band... There is always going to be a slight delay with optical, because you are reading from capillary action on an extremity, rather than electrical impulse via a sensor located directly over the heart. As I understand the tech, there is also some software wizardry involved in decoding the information from an optical sensor, in order to try to distinguish what is an actual heart rate as opposed to 'noise'.
    I think I understand what is going on with this perceived inaccuracy of the Band. For a quick background, I'm an electronic engineer with 26 years in the biomedical diagnostics industry mainly focused on hematology. However, my studies are more in blood cell categorization and quantization rather than pulse detection.

    There is negligible delay between optical and electronic pulse detection. The difference (delay) stems from the clarity of signal from the transducers and time to interpret. Chest straps provide a pretty consistent electronic pulse to do measurements on. The optical sensor has many more variables that lead to inconsistent pulses. Arm hair, tattoos, skin pigment, hemoglobin level (sort of the "redness" of your blood), vessel size and placement, body fat %, proximity to skin.. I'm sure you can think of several more.

    The digital signal processor for the optic sensor must interpret these pulses and set baselines and discriminators to weed out noise and compare it to a table of probability. When you see the Band searching for a lock, I'm pretty sure it's adjusting the discriminators to weed out the noise and set baselines. After you get a lock.... I agree, the Band is accurate.
    teemulehtinen likes this.
    08-05-2015 01:47 PM
  9. DroidUser42's Avatar
    The optical sensor has many more variables that lead to inconsistent pulses.
    I've always believed it was mostly due to motion. I think movement of the arm leads to changes. For example, I can get a solid lock while walking if I hold on to my shirt with my band arm (effectively immobilizing that arm as if it were in a sling).
    08-05-2015 02:47 PM
  10. Nate Silver's Avatar
    I've had very good results with running, hiking, walking outdoors, cycling, even strength training (except push-ups, which not surprisingly always seem to throw it off a bit). The worst problem for me has been treadmill walking. It usually takes several minutes of moving the band around, fiddling between loose and tight etc., before it will begin to catch up with what my chest strap is reading. Then periodically through the activity, it'll start to drop down into the 80 to 90 range, while the strap continues to show high 120's to low 130's. Then I have to fiddle with it again until it starts to behave. Doesn't seem to be any consistency as to what will work. One time its face in, another time it has to be face out. One time it has to be as tight as I can get it, another time it has to be quite loose. But this is only while walking (4.5 mph pace, 12 percent incline) on the treadmill. Its weird, and can get quite frustrating. But, it works fine for everything else, so I put up with it.
    08-05-2015 06:17 PM
  11. Joe920's Avatar
    And there's the problem. Why can't it? Why should we haul something else for "real time"? That's a major issue that I hope gets fixed in the next gen.
    During the transfer of my uservoice pages for the "microstrap" I got to exchange a couple of emails with a Band team member, and I asked if it could in principle connect to a bluetooth heart rate strap for more accurate readings. The answer was that the hardware could in principle do that, but that it was not being considered. It's a missed opportunity in my mind, I'd like to have a watch that I can wear during the day and that can provide accurate HRM readings during exercise.
    CernT likes this.
    08-06-2015 04:21 AM
  12. Snoke's Avatar
    It's a missed opportunity in my mind, I'd like to have a watch that I can wear during the day and that can provide accurate HRM readings during exercise.
    Using a strap is (will soon be) obsolete. IMO. Wanting to have MSB use a strap instead of continuing to develop and improve OHR technology is asking for the wrong thing.
    08-06-2015 08:05 AM
  13. Joe920's Avatar
    Using a strap is (will soon be) obsolete. IMO. Wanting to have MSB use a strap instead of continuing to develop and improve OHR technology is asking for the wrong thing.
    Well, we can definitely ask them to bring OHR measurement up to the level of chest straps, but clearly it's not an easily solved problem!

    In the meantime I'd really like to use a single watch for daily notifications and accurate 'live' heart rate readings during a workout. It shouldn't be too hard either, "just" pick up some bluetooth LE timing info and using that data instead of the OHR data.
    08-06-2015 10:11 AM
  14. orenk's Avatar
    I have a rather peculiar issue with my band. Had it since launch and the HR readings were just fine, during rest as well as hiking and running (both outdoors and on a treadmill). For the last few weeks (maybe since the last update) it just went crazy. I get erratic readings during sleep (resting HR went up from an average of 53 to 70) and while training (used to run in the range of 130-160bpm and now it shows 190+ most of the time... Even at the beginning when I still don't break a sweat...). This is frustrating. Is anybody else having the same issue?
    08-07-2015 11:09 AM
  15. DroidUser42's Avatar
    For the last few weeks (maybe since the last update) it just went crazy. I get erratic readings during sleep (resting HR went up from an average of 53 to 70) and while training (used to run in the range of 130-160bpm and now it shows 190+ most of the time... Even at the beginning when I still don't break a sweat...). This is frustrating. Is anybody else having the same issue?
    I haven't seen any sign of it on mine. You might want to do a reset. It might have gotten some corrupted data.
    orenk likes this.
    08-07-2015 07:51 PM
  16. orenk's Avatar
    Thanks.. I did a factory reset yesterday.. No joy.. Is measuring Ok part of the time and then loses its lock and starts showing very high numbers. To be sure it's not me.. I've also did a manual count while it's locked on my HR. Something is wrong with the band :-/.. I guess I'll have to contact support on this and see if they can fix it or something. Might be the hardware...
    08-08-2015 07:31 AM
  17. masaoota's Avatar
    A wrist strap can be as accurate as a chest strap. Both have their issues and can from time to time spike or drop out. The quality of the wrist monitors however does vary a lot and most tend to be good at either all day monitoring or workout monitoring but not both.
    10-09-2015 01:59 AM
  18. TiBall's Avatar
    First: I love my band!
    However, yes Im also facing great inaccurances with hartrate monitoring. E.g. on my last bike ride (easy pace, 2,5h) I compared the band to my chest strap:
    Band: 156bpm avg
    Chest Strap: 122bpm avg

    Most times I check, the band seems to be off by 20bpm.
    Is there any way to gauge the values?
    Any other tricks or advice to get more accurate values?
    This really messes up my hartrate zone statistics :-(
    Captain_Eric likes this.
    11-23-2015 04:06 AM
  19. DroidUser42's Avatar
    Any other tricks or advice to get more accurate values?
    Try wearing it different ways. Display in/display out. Different tightness. Different spot on the arm. Maybe even the other arm. Or how you hold/move your arm (although with a bike ride I don't think there's many options.)
    11-23-2015 07:59 PM
  20. Will Gilliland's Avatar
    Try wearing it different ways. Display in/display out. Different tightness. Different spot on the arm. Maybe even the other arm. Or how you hold/move your arm (although with a bike ride I don't think there's many options.)
    I'd add to that list, rotation. That seemed to make the most difference to me with the Band 1. I have tried all positions, tensions on my wrist, shaved my wrists, you name it. The only thing that permanently cured my lack of HR lock was getting the Band 2.

    I wear my Band 2 display up and consistently get a lock and they are accurate according to my Garmin chest strap.
    11-29-2015 06:01 PM
  21. Kevin Greenan's Avatar
    I have experienced similar wide variations in heart rate accuracy- whether on the elliptical, playing racquetball, hiking. I could understand this from a v 1 product, but not the v2 band. Seems Microsoft used more on the design and less on the performance and accuracy.
    05-23-2016 07:17 PM
271 ... 91011

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-26-2015, 11:00 AM
  2. Is Samsung Forced to Make Windows Phones?
    By thesachd in forum Upcoming & Rumored Phones
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-09-2014, 05:09 PM
  3. How good is Internet Sharing w/this phone?
    By lparsons21 in forum HTC One (M8) for Windows
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-04-2014, 11:15 AM
  4. [BAND] Sizing?
    By surfacedude in forum Microsoft Band & Band 2
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-01-2014, 07:53 PM
  5. Can GPS tracks be recorded internally?
    By Windows Central Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-2014, 03:27 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD