Comparative Review of 5 Hearing Aids

Scholarly Articles, News, and Other Resources
#29

OK everyone, I was very wrong when I tried to protect Barry earlier. Oops. This post just hit Hearing aid know. Wow. :drooling_face:

1 Like
#31

I think he was a record promoter in a past life. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::smiling_imp:

1 Like
#33

Why do you link to a review that uses expletives FAR worse than mine (just a lowly “BS”)? Doesn’t seem very consistent to me.

#34

They aren’t my expletives. I choose my language carefully, and notice I didn’t say anything profanely offensive to Barry. I am not endorsing Geoff’s language, but he’s a trusted resource, and I believe his sources are good on this.

#35

And yet when someone like pvc uses ad-hominem attacks against me (which I never did; I said his argument was **), its obviously just fine with you.

#37

If it looks like a fish, goes like a fish, but steers like a cow, then you’ll probably crash into the Sun. (With apologies to Douglas Adams for the misquote)

I’m not entirely sure that I’m happy with the objectivity being applied here. The survey was called out as flawed in the early replies, but the official line was that the board should support this sort of investigation. When did scrutinising an opinion become a problem? We didn’t call it Fake News, we applied logic and experience to the claims and appropriately questioned the outcome - is this not what should be expected in terms of the efficacy of any argument on here?

#38

I will let it live… it’s fine. I think there is some valuable information here.

#39

Very nice … :slight_smile:

#41

FWIW, mblank is banned again. We banned him previously for all of his provocations and spamming about buyhear, and he just returned under a different user account. This time he is banned by IP, so hopefully that’s the end of it. :tired_face:

#43

Neither, that was chatteremail

#44

“… great fake review …”

Fake in what way, may I ask?

If anyone can point to some statement in the review that’s false, I’d sure like to hear their reasoning.

Barry Nance

#46

So, Barry, tell us what Phonak told you when you tried to con them out of a pair of B90 Titanium CICs?

#47

Phonak initially agreed to participate in the review, then changed its mind and stonewalled me. So, actually, the final review is even more independent than it otherwise would’ve been.

We subsequently found Phonak customers willing to participate as testers in the review.

#49

Funny you mentioned Walls.

Perhaps you should get them to build a wall between you and them, with the only caveat is that Phonak has to pay for the wall.

See how that one flies…

1 Like
#50

Well that explains a lot! Good on Phonak for refusing. Anyone know if the deal was offered to other manufacturers?

1 Like
#51

Any review of HAs which uses free HAs from a manufacturer cannot be independent and any results should be ignored.

1 Like
#52

Nonsense to this innuendo. Phonak is displaying an inane level of corporate petulance.

The hearing aid industry (manufacturers and audiologists) want to keep the status quo.

Judge for yourself:

Phonak’s media relations people put us in touch with the Virto B90 product manager.
The Virto B90 product manager said Phonak would participate in the review.
Then, suddenly, upper management stepped in. They said no.
Based on initial research I’d done, I was confident the Phonak product would win the review.
To change Phonak’s mind about participating, I replied to Phonak’s sudden change of heart with the following:

At this point, we have three alternatives:
A. Review the Virto B90 that you supply, and it wins the review.
B. Review a different, less capable Phonak/Sonova device (Several Phonak device wearers have already offered to act as testers). A Siemens/Sivantos/Signia device will likely win the review in this case.
C. Declare in the review that Phonak/Sonova refused to participate.

If you participate in the review, the Virto B90 device will certainly win the review. And we’ll characterize the
Virto B90 as smart, fast, durable, comfortable and effective.

We then did the review without Phonak’s formal (willing) participation.

Phonak Virto B70, not B90, customers were our testers in the review.

The Phonak devices did NOT fare as well in the review as I had thought they would.

Finally, every statement in the review is true and accurate.

#54

In other words - You presented them with an ultimatum!

Just for your information: To do independent reviews you need to buy an item and go through the process just like an average consumer.

#55

A few other items -

Every statement in the review is true and accurate.

No one received any compensation, financial or otherwise, for the review.

Unlike in most reviews, every product reviewed was actually purchased from a vendor.

Think about the thousands of computer hardware and software reviews you’ve ever seen. Did the reviewer (or trade publication) buy all those products? Of course not. The review of 5 hearing aids is an exception to the rule.

We personally have reviewed thousands of products over the past 25-plus years. Some were million-dollar enterprise-level products from, say, Cisco, Sun Microsystems, IBM, HP or CA Technologies. At the end of a review, we’d either send the product back to the vendor or, if the vendor didn’t want it back, we’d either donate it or throw it out.

For a review on topic XYZ that came up on the schedule, we’d often have vendors hesitant to submit products. We (and the trade publication) would tell the hesitant vendor, “If you don’t submit your product for the review, we’ll find something similar or we’ll tell readers you refused to participate.” Happens every day. It’s not extortion. It’s honest truth.

A vendor’s refusal to submit a product for review usually implied it didn’t work as advertised or perhaps that it was difficult to install or use.

No Network Testing Labs person has ever worked for Siemens or Signia, in any capacity.

The survey reinforced what we (and you!) already know - the vast majority of hearing-impaired people don’t have hearing aids. The biggest reason is cost. The next reason is appearance/embarrassment. And ease of use is an important factor. These people are prospective hearing aid buyers, nearly always on a tight budget. They’re not experienced users who perhaps have enough money to buy the latest and greatest.

We did the review - without compensation! - as a public service, to relate to you our experiences with a variety of hearing aids. We deliberately included hearing aids costing hundreds of dollars with those costing thousands, to help people make informed buying decisions.

We’re pushing back on this issue because hearing aid manufacturers and audiologists have for too long blown smoke in the direction of prospective buyers. As a small example, manufacturers like to publish “reviews” on their Web sites - hand-picked, carefully-edited, glowing “reviews.”

Our review of 5 hearing aids is a real review.

#56

I would agree that a lot of reviewers do not have to pay for what they’re reviewing. The practice does raise all kinds of questions, including did the manufacturer select a particularly good one or prep it in a certain way. That’s why Consumer Reports goes out and buys products, but they’re kind of the gold standard. Most reviews we see on the web are not done that way. More transparent ones will thank the manufacturer for providing the item for review.