Here is our in-depth review of 5 hearing aids, as a PDF file.
We think the hearing aid industry needs a great deal more comparative reviews like this one. You see these sorts of reviews for computers and computer software – why not for hearing aids? Now Hear This.pdf (1.2 MB)
The review is really odd, I think. First, the large majority of people (near 2/3 now, possibly more) use BTE (or RIC) hearing aids, so the audience for this is limited. Second, you recommend buying on the internet (which I agree with), but don’t seem to realize that people who buy on the internet tend to be younger and more tech-savvy than most - and these people are VERY interested in Bluetooth connectivity. Yet you seem to denigrate the technology and its effectiveness - sorry, but this is silly. Direct to HA Bluetooth is a terrific feature for phone calls (ask some actual users), as is music streaming (though it’s pretty lousy on most HA’s). Yes, it’s not perfect, but your willingness to dismiss BT hearing aids outright shows a very peculiar kind of bias.
The Silks are terrific hearing aids for many people, so I’m not surprised they do well in your tests. But I’ve also heard very good things from Titanium users (and Phonak users in general), so I’m a bit suspicious of your results.
Also, the idea that you can rate hearing aids that are programmed by non-professionals strikes me as pretty absurd on its face.
I appreciate the effort here, but I don’t see very much value in the results. Sorry
Also, you seem to recommend programming the Titanium with a HiPro 2. You do realize, don’t you, that these cost in the neighborhood of $1,500, and are extremely hard to find on the internet. It’s just not a realistic scenario; why not a HiPro? Or even an iCube II? Both of these would be far cheaper and they are far easier to find. For the Silk, you discuss Connexx Air; how do you expect people to get one of these? Also, you might have mentioned ConnexxLink (older, but more available) as an option or … HiPro again (cheaper, easier to find, though you need flex strips).
Meanwhile…on the very next day…this review was found to be bogus and personally motivated.
Really weird review. Unusual criteria, unusual selection of hearing aids and odd conclusions.
I don’t know who this character is, but I wouldn’t trust his opinion on whether a Snickers was better than a Mars.
I, for one, would appreciate a comparative review of 5 chocolate bars.
I think comparative reviews of each company’s same-level hearing aids (e.g. OPN1 vs 7Nx, vs Linx 3D vs Audeo B90) would be valuable, BUT it’s hard to go far beyond objective measures (e.g. specs/features) without sinking into a morass of subjective evaluations, not least of which is the experience of the person fitting the aids. Comparisons within a range (OPN1 vs OPN2) seem more likely to be valuable, as the same settings can be used for both (with the exception of missing features, of course); even so, the differences are likely to be relatively small for most users.
As much as the higher-trained folks here think that fitting HA’s is a science, I don’t think that’s true in the “real world”, where fitters (whether MD, AuD, or HIS) have more or less experience with certain aids, are better listeners, etc. I think that it’s more of an art for most providers and most customers, but that’s just my $.02
If I were him, I’d be inclined to stick in the area of his own expertise in future.
Thought some aspects of the review was interesting, but have the following observations:
Have worn Phonak Virto ITC UZ hearing aids for the last 2 years and have never had a problem with feedback. How do we know that this guy just had a particular fit issue, which caused problems with feedback with the titanium ?
Am none the wiser as to whether any of these solutions meet a severe loss. Would have liked to have known this.
Isn’t self programming mainly of interest for the professionals. Yes, some self program, but what if you don’t ? Perhaps of relevance if you are forced to do that, say, for online purchasing.
Clear sound ? It is great that this is mentioned. Would have liked some detail of what hearing aids were good in noise though.
Think it is good that this is independent and does not just focus on the big 6.
I agree that it is kind of an odd review. He states that the test subjects had variable hearing loss, but I’m guessing they were all in the mild to moderate range. It was also odd to include self programming in the review and that seems to be a part of the ratings (under ease of configurability) Describing test subjects better and describing how hearing aids were chosen would improve review.
Hey everyone… Not super excited with the mood and feedback in here. It looks like this person has put in a lot of effort to do something very few have taken the time to do… Perhaps some encouragement and constructive feedback would be appropriate. Calling his efforts BS and *** is really uncalled for. @BarryNance-TestLab thanks for the effort, and I hope some constructive feedback can be gleaned from this mess 
Well, I think the limit to ITE types is what made everyone start questioning it. They are not the most popular devices. I thought the review was sincere but very limited.
The review had widely varied price points which can help those who are looking for a PSAP. But, it’s still an apple/orange comparison.
I edited my post so as not to offend.
Just the one? 
Here’s some further data on the review, in no particular order.
In a survey, prospective new hearing aid buyers said cost was a big issue. They specifically asked: Why spend thousands when I can get basically the same thing on the Internet for just hundreds of dollars? So we put both categories of hearing aids in the review.
We chose to review In-The-Ear devices and omit BlueTooth/TeleCoil devices for the reasons expressed in the review. Surveyed prospective new hearing aid buyers said they wanted “insert it and forget it” ease of use. They attributed little or no importance to BlueTooth/TeleCoil, especially if they had to occasionally reconnect the devices to their phone or consciously switch programs to make the feature work.
We bought the configuration (“programming”) hardware on the Internet from discount hearing aid suppliers.
The prospective new hearing aid buyers wanted to know if they could avoid the cost of an audiologist by configuring (“programming”) the devices themselves, so we described these configuration steps in the review.
@BarryNance-TestLab this is a great starting point IMO, but I think the study is biased towards those with a milder loss. For those with a more severe loss, I’m not sure the aids you reviewed would be good choices. I also think Bluetooth streaming for phone calls is a significant feature of many RIC aids today that maybe you’re overlooking. Anyway, really great to see this sort of analysis and hope that you expand the study for the future.
Barry Nance said:
We think the hearing aid industry needs a great deal more comparative reviews like this one. You see these sorts of reviews for computers and computer software – why not for hearing aids?
A great Review of hearing aids! As Barry Nance said, “the hearing aid industry needs a great deal more comparative reviews like this one.”
The review only covered a limited range of aids that were quite diverse and was constrained to ITE type instruments. I personally agree with the result and recommendation that the review came to, especially considering the limited number and wide range of aids that were tested.
I heartily congratulate Barry Nance for his work in conducting the tests and producing the review for all of us.
I would love to see similar unbiased comparative testing and reporting, with no holds barred, on the latest top premium RIC aids from each of the big manufacturers including, Oticon, Signia/Siemens, Phonak, Unitron, Starkey, GN ReSound and Widex.
Now that is the burning question on everybody’s lips! Is there anyone out there that could handle that challenge?
You won’t see such a test being publicly sponsored by any of the manufacturers. But, I am very sure they all have done this testing in each of their labs and the results are extremely closely held company secrets.
Let’s get some more consumer comparative testing done and put the results out there and provide a real challenge to the manufacturers to do even better!
If you had done that survey here, you would have gotten much different results. I’d say the various CIC aids make up 10-15T% of buyer choice here.
The ongoing problem is that the new users you used can also be described as uninformed. And that is what the industry preys on.
I can see you directing it toward the mild-moderate buyer as that makes up the bulk of the market. It also makes for the largest group that turns down the purchase.
It might be beneficial to run a type worn survey here.
BTW, I thought your article will help many. Folks here have to understand it is not definitive for the entire market .
One of the problems with asking nonhearing aid wearers what they want is that they do not have enough experience to know what they need beyond wanting an easy cheap solution. Connectivity can be very useful. My RIC aids are also easily able to leave me forgetting they are there. I have not used in the canal aids but find it hard to believe they would be more comfortable. In the ear HAs do have one advantage you did not mention - they allow the pinna to function as usual and provide directional location aspects of hearing which tend to be harder with BTE/RIC models.
Good idea to have reviews but I don’t think your range was representative of the options out there. I do appreciate it is a very expensive area to study.
because what is being reviewed are a combination of things the all interact with each other?
1- How accurate is the HA maker’s assessment of the person’s hearing loss, and how accurately is the aid programmed for that loss? Is the aid programmed for speech recognition of for sonic fidelity?
2- How much does the aid maker rely on sound processing, like anti feedback, environmental adapters, auto programming switching, etc. to achieve what they believe is a pleasing sound response, and how well do these processors work?
3- What type of venting is used and how does that affect the low end response vs, relieving occlusion?
4- What ear mold shape is used? What is the bore size and length? And how does that work vs. a universal fit dome?
Generally speaking if one make of aid is preferred over another, that preference is based upon the programming and the maker’s idea of how much sound processing should be used. But very often, the aid itself has the exact same CPU as the other aid it is being compared to. There are actually very few companies that make the chip (CPU) for hearing aids, and very few that make the receive (speaker). The differences are how a maker chooses to tell the CPU how to respond to incoming sound…