Okay, well your use of the word discretion in that manner is a little obscure, and I did not infer from that exactly what you were trying to say. It would be more common to use the word discrete.
Well that is partially true, I think it may be exaggerated. I’ve seen many custom aids lasting years without needing a new receiver. And modern RICs have nanocoating to protect from both moisture and oils, along with a replaceable wax guard.
You are making the assumption that people are always looking for the most reliable device. If that were true no one would ever buy a car brand that wasn’t rated #1 by J D Power. But people do.
The fact that a BTE may be statistically the most reliable, doesn’t mean everything else is simply going to fall apart. Some people favor aesthetics, sound quality, features, and other factors above reliability. Who are you to assume that other people will share your values in this area?
What I am saying is that because of the popularity of RIC aids, manufacturers are throwing a lot of money at them. It is not uncommon for new features to hit the RIC first and then later get put in other aids. Starkey as an example have not yet implemented wireless technology into BTEs, in fact they elected to put that technology in custom aids as small as the CIC before they considered putting it in a traditional BTE. Now given that there’s more space in a BTE than a CIC, it seems odd that they would do this for technical reasons. It in fact seems far more likely that their research led them to believe that there was more market for custom and RIC wireless devices than BTEs.
In any case I stand by my assertion that RICs are getting a lot of special treatment right now, and a patient would be remiss to disregard that and head for an aid that might be marginally more reliable, but larger, more noticeable, and perhaps less effective.
When sound does anything, that IS physics!
Physics is by definition, “The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.”
My argument, whether you choose to accept it or not, is that there are limitations when you force a sound to travel through a thin bendy tube, and that it is not always possible to reproduce the same sound in that manner. Specifically I believe that you are often likely to sacrifice high frequency sounds, as they don’t travel as well as lower frequency sounds. That’s why whales or elephants send sounds to each other, they use very low frequency sound that travels further.
I’m sorry for assuming that. I have never lived or worked anywhere where bone conduction testing was not mandatory before prescribing a hearing aid.
In any case, this is clearly a SNHL, and I’d be happy to proceed without B/C scores. You just don’t get a conductive or mixed loss that looks like that. Even if this specific loss were mixed, a shade more power and the problem would be solved.