That’s what I would of thought, this is why we have the “fitting range” we already know when fitting ones loss (after the audiogram) that the higher frequencies can be met within the fitting range of the HAs, having it confirmed by REM certainty helps some.
REM with frequency lowering turned off is used to determine the highest aided audible frequency meeting a certain threshold of loudness.This in turn will be used to determine the upper frequency bound of the frequency range that will be the destination of the frequency lowering.
The audiogram provides frequency thresholds of unaided response. There’s no way to tell from an audiogram what should be the destination range of the source frequencies to be lowered.
That’s what the software does, after inputting the audiogram, different formulas will give you different outcomes, of course this can all be checked by REM and adjusted to suit.
1 Like
You complete REM without frequency lowering and once you have a good fit-to-targets you confirm /s/ audibility. If it is audible, then you don’t turn on frequency lowering–no point in introducing extra distortion where you do not need it. Even if you know you are going to need frequency lowering, you need to start with a good fit-to-target prior to adjusting for /s/ audibility.
2 Likes
Thanks, your explanation clears this up well.
So, returning to this. It’s not implausible at all, but. . . while I don’t have access to the Phillips software the pre-REM gain at high frequencies seems low relative to your loss.
How’s it sounding?
I never listened pre-REM except for the initial 10-minute walk around the warehouse on the first visit. The post-REM experience has been quite good! I’ve heard some sounds I’ve not heard before, even after 8 years wearing (no-REM) HAs.
1 Like
Then your post REM settings are probably correct.
There can be some really dramatic differences between what the manufacturer software says hearing aids are doing and what they are actually doing, due both to how the manufacturers have set things but also to the shape of the ear and the acoustic coupling. I always think of the clinicians who are not doing REM when I’m seeing a difference like that, because they must simply never know that this is the case. I think that if a clinician didn’t have experience with how much REM can differ, it would be pretty scary to crank the hearing aids up that much–how would you know that you weren’t setting the hearing aids in a way that could be damaging?
IIRC the HIS said that the REM was to NAL-NL2. And the post-REM insertion gains look pretty close to (pre-REM) NAL-NL2’s. So yesterday I, a DIYer, made a couple of adjustments to the audiogram to make a judgmental average with two others that I’d had recently, and changed the rationale to NAL-NL2. Here are the diffs between what I ended with yesterday and the original post-REM fit at Costco (Costco audiogram, Fit2Speech):
I support averaging audiograms in cases where loss is stable, and dumping outliers. That said, if you’ve been comfortable with a setting and adjusting the audio reduces gain prescriptions, keep in mind that you’re just reducing audibility.
I’m not sure I’m totally clear on what you’re saying here. Had the software not been set to nl2? That would help explain how things were so off. But additionally, if the HIS said it was “pretty close” then why all the gain changes? Though I suppose “pretty close” is subjective and it was indeed pretty close on the middle.
The HearSuite fitting software had been set to Fit4Speech, not NL-2. “Pretty close” is my description, not the HIS’s (I’m a DIYer.)
So, if you were happy with his settings… Don’t reduce things. Especially not at 2k. Unless you were finding things uncomfortable or unbalanced.
OK, I’ll go back to the original post-REM. Thanks for the counseling!
1 Like