Having had to be technical support for marketing for 18 months, I always get a kick out of ‘state of the art’ thrown around in conversation. It is of corse a meaningless term. Who knows weather the big boys (Phonak, Siemens, etc) patent their algorithms. By filing a patent, you essentially are making your IP public domain, so they may not even do this. There are no doubt more currently developed algorithms then ADRO, lord knows weather they perform as well.
I will actually ourright disagree with Lucille on the AH freedom being state of the art. I’m not sure where my notes from 2 years ago went on this subject, but AH opted to use an older DSP and have dynamic hearing write ADRO firmware for it. Gennum offers a ADRO specific processor that blows the doors off the one used by AH.
More channels, faster sampling, more processing power. Yah, they might give you better sound. I recollect the growing frustration with the powerful laptop my company gives me becuase it is as slow as mollasas. I did a boot speed test with a 10 year old frankenclone PC and my brand new ‘state of the art’ laptop. When the 10 year old frankenclone had fully booted, the laptop was finishing it’s bios check. This is progress???
I think your response is ludicrous- First you assert that ‘state of the art’ is meaningless and then you disagree with it. A logical fallacy if I ever saw one.
Yeah, I’m in love with AH. They gave me my hearing back, at a reasonable price, and put me in control with the software. They are steady gaining on the uber expensive HAs and like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, have dispelled the notion that there is some incomprehensible wizardry involved in understanding the technology that helps us.
I don’t need to argue the subject at all. The market reports in the coming years will be proof enough
ADRO is a good but standard amplifier with a slow acting gain control to handle very soft and very loud inputs (3 to 9 db/second). Gains are changed when the input meets certain proprietary criteria for a defined amount of time, usually one or two seconds. The drawback is that for those hoh with substantial recruitment, the ADRO is slow to handle very loud sharp input. (The accompanying MPO, while fast, distorts the louder sounds when cranked up too far.)
Note: Recruitment is defined as the inability of the defective human hearing system to handle loud sounds without discomfort and distortion. Almost all losses above 50-60 db are accompanied by some degree of recruitment.
WDRC (Wide Dynamic Range Compression), used in the vast majority of the aids on the market, has a dual capability, with both fast(1 or 2 milliseconds) and/or an averaging slow control of the varying input (Syllabic and Dual). It is highly flexible and operates linearly up to the selectable knee point. Compression ratio’s are selectable. Only at very high ratio’s and low knee points does the system introduce objectionable distortion.
I am not aware of any creditable peer review papers comparing relative performance of the two systems. Ed
All companies patent their intellectual property. Patents are an essential component of hi-tech businesses because they enable “cross-licensing” agreements with other companies. This permits these companies to share their various discoveries without constant bickering and litigation. The more patents you have, the less you pay for cross-licensing.
Voyageur is an Open Platform product that is not locked to any single sound processing algorithm. This is a good thing because it can accomodate software for a variety of existing and future algorithms and will ultimately achive higher sales volume and, thus, lower prices. Lower prices could “blow the doors off” the sales of other DSPs that are narrowly focused on single algorithms.
Dynamic Hearing Inc. is a software company that originated ADRO as an Open Platform product and implemented the software to run on a number of DSPs. This is also a good thing because software development is far more challenging than most people imagine.
The Open Platform concept lowers the barriers to entry into the HA market by allowing new companies to enter the market quickly, buying, rather than building the HA components. They can then focus on building the high volume, low cost distribution channel and post-sales support system that will be needed to accomodate all those HOH baby-boomers.
Adro was used by cochlear, interton and Phonak (in their digital bionics )
Of the 3, I think cochlear still uses adro pros. strategy… It is def. falling out of fashion-- perhaps it did not work well for phonak…
perhaps someone who fits lots of phonak could shed some light…
Mostly, but not always. Big companies do for sure, it is not uncommon for smaller companies to stay low on the radar and simply try to ‘hide’ their IP in their products. Some uPs & DSP today have special provisions to prevent people from sucking off the firmware in order to prevent people from reverse engineering it.
/opinion on
All in all, the whole patent process has spun out of control and for the most part exists today simply to employ more lawyers
/opinion off
Ah, that is interesting to know, I wonder if there is any performance difference in the finished instrument (it may be time for an upgrade!).
FWIW, I did a quick peruse of Gennum, and it looks like they still offer ADRO specific processors.
While it is true that using voyager gives more flexibility in executing the algorithm, I gotta believe an instrument with hardware specific engines for the algorithm will have more performance (which may or may not lead to a better performing instrument).
It is speculation on my part, but I think you are right that AH opted for Voyager to save money. It probably gives the best bang for the buck. Of corse, the difference between the Voyager and Advanta may be the difference of $20 vs $35.
Ed, I’ve seen you often repeat the ‘ADRO is slow’ assertion. Can you site a source of this information? The AH software allows you to set the slew rate, but my understanding of the algorithm is that the decision to change the gains is fast.
I’ve always though of ADRO as frequency dependent automatic gain control, but it could be that the statistical harmonic analysis is what really makes it work well. Have you read through the whole patent?
There was a (n objective) paper written on ADRO & discrimination in hearing aids, I’m willing to bet you can find it from the Dynamic Hearing website.
I’m glad you are happy with yours (I am a client as well). When everyone was buying palm pilots, I kept my critical contact list on a slip of paper in my wallet. This little slip of paper outperformed a palm pilot in every catagory that was meaningful to me, but it certainly was not ‘state of the art’ (the quotes around this phrase being a mockery).
It sounds to me that what steered you to AH is their business model, not their instruments.
I would have bought AH hearing aids but…they don’t have anything that is bluetooth.
That was important to me because I am on the cell phone all day. Now do they have a good product yes. Is it better than my Siemens Pures? That would be subjective. Are they lacking in technology …Yes no bluetooth. These are simple facts.
In the future I will probably buy a pair from them when they meet my needs.
I do love their business model and I think it is refreshing. But there are those that think “Songbirds” are great because they cost $60 and you don’t replace the batteries.
I had someone tell me that Songbirds are just as good as Phonaks…
ADRO is a compression management algorithm and a decent one. Not to mention the engineers at Dynamic Hearing are a fine bunch of blokes.
However, every hearing aid company must have a decent compression management algorithm. It’s effectively the drivetrain of the hearing aid.
On the topic of slow versus fast compression-- there is no single answer. Slow versus fast is ultimately going to be a personal preference that may be slightly driven by severity of hearing loss.
Some hearing aid companies stick to their own design rationale slow(Widex) to very fast (Sonic Innovations). Ultimately it is not going to be the difference between success or failure for most patients. If you have a specific preference there are some companies that will allow the audiologist to select compression time constants (Starkey).
I’m one of those hoh with profound loss above 1500 Hz along with the associated recruitment issues. AH looked at my audiogram and told me… sorry, we can’t help you.
GN resound has Both - the Pulse has something call enviromental steering…
which has both slow and fast. Then oticon had copied this and call it
true dinamics or so. When the SNR is poor then it uses fast for speech enhancement when the SNR is good the instrument sets itself to slow comp…
Gn should be credited for this, HOWEVER, they have not use this in their new products, I wonder why
LOL, yes and I would not even be surprised if the marketeers who hawked the songbird called it state of the art. While their business model was unique, it never made any sense to me and the fact that they did not last long tells their story well.
Quoting the Dynamic Hearing Technical Manual…1. The ADRO gains change slowly in response to changes in the sound environment.
The default rate of change is 3db/sec…
Further Quote:2. The ADRO Comfort Rule will decrease the output level if it exceeds the Comfort Target more than 10% of the time…
…3.will increase the output …if it falls below the Audibility Target ,more than 30% of the time.
Thus there are two sets of times which are additive. The decision to change the gain is one and the slew rate selected is the other.
Obviously, the decision to change might take quite a long time. Dynamic Hearing does not tell us the sampling time needed to activate a change but it must be on the order of a few seconds or more.
I framed my post from the point of view of those with more than a moderate amount of recruitment. During the two ADRO intervals loud sounds can be very difficult to handle. Yes there is a MPO circuit but at high levels it is essentially a fast clipper with the usual artifacts and distortion. Ed
Agreed on the slew rate, but I think it would be interesting to find out how fast they decide to modify the gains because I was thinking it was tens of milliseconds. I will put it on my to do list to read the patent.
Don’t know but it seems that the circuit would have to establish some form of base average level and that it seems would require substantial time. Let me know what you find out from the patent. Ed
I did skim it and there was nothing that talked about deliberate delays in the algorithm. The slew rate is included in the patent as 3-10dB/sec, which certainly results in a slow large signal gain output adjustment. The MPO is also called out as kicking in in 100uS.
I am about to walk away from a 2 year old pair of Siemens Cielo ITE hearing aids. They over amplify high pitched noise and chirp or squeal when music is playing. I have had them adjusted at least a dozen times. Some of the adjustments have left them working fairly well when I left, but within a month they were drifting up the scale and chirping again.
I feel the provider has taken advantage of my ignorance of how hearing aids should work and stalled me past when I could get a refund. I am trying my state’s lemon law, but it may too late for it.
