Does anyone have experience with the acoustically optimized vent (AOV) by Phonak. They claim that it is effective to deal with occulsion in a custom earmold. Is this a gimmick or does it really work?
Could be similar to an adjust a vent that allows fitters to insert different plugs into the vent until they hit the right size for the wearer.
I was wondering about this.
Only spice plus and quest phonaks have this according to phonak.
To get the AOV right, you have to full in your hearing test results when sending earmolds off which I only found this out last week which is why I was wondering 
I don’t have vents in my earmolds but my Audi said they would of got AOV just right for. 
I just received my new Phonaks last month with the AOV feature. Interestingly the sizes are different on each HA. I had a problem with occlusion with my previous Starkey S Series iQs without vents and these are a World of difference improvement wise!!! My Audiology Doc says that the difference is because of my ear shapes differing and slight differences in loss. Vents in general are not a gimmick - these are just scientifically improved for individual optimization!
ps., all the features they have are working fine for me. My Audiologist did set a program for me that is Right Zoom so I can hear my wife better in the car. It works well!
Whether it works or not depends on whether you agree with Phonak’s method of prescribing gain. If you’re fitting using standard fitting formulae (i.e. NAL or DSL) then it’s a mixed bag. If you’re fitting using Phonak’s proprietary prescription formula then good luck finding some targets to match to 
That’s the way it is with any of the manufacturers that use their own gain formulas to fit hearing aids, which is pretty much every single one though…so that statement is a bit misleading.
Anyway, all a prescriptive method is is a recommendation, no matter who comes up with it. The important part is how it sounds to the patient. Venting can be changed - personally I usually select the largest vent size appropriate for the patient’s loss and make changes as necessary.
Could you clarify as to how that is misleading? If you’re using a manufacturer’s proprietary formula unless you work for the manufacturer it’s unlikely your verification equipment will be able to generate appropriate real ear targets for that formula. I don’t see anything misleading about stating that. I wouldn’t want to give commenters in this thread the idea that AOV is something massively advanced when it’s really just the manufacturer’s guestimate on the ideal venting for a given hearing loss and ear, and is only as accurate as the model that it’s based on and whether the final gain settings are implemented in a manner that is in agreement with their guestimate.
Your statement implied that Phonak’s fitting algorithm doesn’t have targets. They do have targets, they just use their own, which is what every manufacturer does and I felt that needed to be clarified. That is where I felt it was a bit misleading. Also stating that the decision by the wearer on whether it works or not is based on matching a target/believing in Phonak’s fitting algorithms when, in fact, it working or not depends entirely on how it sounds to the wearer not what a fitting formula says. I suspect this is more a professional bias however, I know that a lot of professionals put a great deal of weight in what the real-ear says when compared to fitting formulas provided. I don’t. It’s a nice piece of the puzzle to have and it helps to trouble-shoot definitely, but I personally feel that what the patient says is the most important measurement tool available. So if I have a fitting formula that says they should have X amount of gain but they prefer Y, even if it’s TOTALLY off, I’ll always side with the patient.
I didn’t disagree with you. If you sat down and tried to match a NAL-NL1 or something with the Phonak settings, you wouldn’t, but that’s the case with nearly all the manufacturers when it comes to real-ear. That was where I thought it was a bit misleading especially for someone that doesn’t understand how the fitting formulas and manufacturer software/proprietary formulas work.
I find it interesting that I am the only person responding with personal experience. I am an electronic tech by trade and lots of experience in audio. I have had several HAs with vents and a couple without. How the size of the vent is determined is probably irrelevant to 99% of the users. They just want the proper sound coming into their ear and brain with no occlusion. It is nice to see the different opinions from the HA experts but as I said the Phonak system works in my case!
1 Like
Touche. What I should have said was good luck finding verifiable targets
I also could have not been so quick to jump on the post…lol. Might have been in a snarky/pissy mood that day. Sorry.:o
Anyone has also experience with AOV by Phonak? Currently I have cShell with pressure vent, but I wonder does AOV could better utilize my normal hearing at low frequencies.
Earlier I have no vent in hope to deal better with noisies, but despite no discomfort with occlusion I hear people really bad even in easier situations. So I changed it into cShell with pressure vent which makes audibility and clarity better.
Not only. I received a message from Phonak Audiology Assistant:
“(…) AOV is a ventilation in which the acoustic mass of the hole is calculated, therefore not only the diameter of the ventilation is taken into account, but also its length or shape (for example, it can be narrower in one part to expand in another). Thanks to the digital design of such ventilation based on the patient’s audiogram, we can create a solution that is as comfortable as possible for the user in terms of wearing (occlusion) and at the same time not at the expense of sound quality. (…)”
Additionally: