VPN circumvents that easily.
Still no surveyā¦yet another mention hereā¦not mentioned in the āreviewā.
Youāre just pulling crap out of thin air otherwise.
You started a āreviewā with some made-up conclusions and made up your own bias towards many areas of the industry. That is how many people here got flashing lights and warning signals.
If you had written anything along the lines of āthis is the scope of what weāre reviewingā then maybe people here wouldnāt have been alarmed. If you had not stated your dismissal of many areas of the industry then maybe people here wouldnāt have been alarmed.
Iām all for keeping the manufacturers honest. The pricing issue seems to be more at the retail end. Keep them honest.
Actually, what you sent them was this, before the review was ever written
Weād like to provide you with a positive, compelling review of the Phonak Virto B90 Titanium device. The comparative review will persuasively express the benefits and features of the Virto B90, and it will show sales prospects why purchasing cheap hearing devices through the Internet is a bad idea.
At this point, we have three alternatives:
A. Review the Virto B90 that you will supply to us. It wins the review.
B. Review a different Phonak/Sonova device (Several Phonak device wearers have already offered >to act as testers). A Siemens/Sivantos/Signia device will likely win the review.
C. Declare somewhat harshly but truthfully in the review that Phonak/Sonova refused to participate.
If you participate in the review by providing a pair of Virto B90 devices (the first alternative):
The Virto B90 device will win the review. Weāll characterize the Virto B90 as smart, fast, durable, comfortable and effective.
The iHear Medical HD device ($349 USD each, sold via the Internet) will lose the review.
A paper trail is a terrible thing. People rely on the Independent reviews they can get access to buy life changing equipment. Duplicitous and dishonest reviews are of no use to them.
If Signia did actually support this, it would appear it has backfired in the most unusual way possibleā¦ Iām sure they love that Barry quoted online pricing and fit the Silk himself 
@BarryNance-TestLab
Sadly, your review is another empirical look at a modest collection of hearing aids. Unfortunately, there isnāt another way to look at them other than subjective experience coupled to superficial hardware glances.
We know it shouldnāt be different from a Tomās Hardware review which look at a host of measurable events. But the proprietary nature of the industry makes that difficult to impossible.
I suggest you write off hearing aids or prayerfully dig deep. Your look may have been well intentioned but testing was as superficial as some of our discussions.
You see BarryNance-TestLabā¦thatās credible. Iāll put some faith in Abram putting some faith in geo_C therefore faith in his source.
Your whole presentation starts out in a position of corruption. Itās tainted. Therefore worthless.
I think most, if not all the reviews we see are ātaintedā in some way. Iām not sure it makes them worthless. One needs to read between the lines. If one does so, one can usually glean some info, although it may not be what the reviewer intended.
The best reviews we get for HT are the ones we get in person. We attend the HLAA conference most years and setup a booth and two laptops and give out free hearing aid batteries for reviews. We check the aids on peopleās ears and make sure we get them on the right product page. So much great info.
Iām just saying that this guy has been caught out corrupting his review thereby rendering it worthless.
Let alone all his biases.
Of course we donāt know how much corruption might be in any and all reviews. For meā¦for online reviewsā¦I actually look for negative reviews. Someone has taken the time to sign up and say their piece. Positive reviews can too easily simply be paid. And that has been found to be true. Particularly now in this day and age of social media and bloggers and box-opening videos etcā¦the reviewer more often than not is being compensated in some way for their efforts.
Edit: Thinking further on this and what with another thread going onā¦I suppose one needs to keep a wary eye on negative reviews as being paid-for slamming of a competitor.
1 Like
Iām curious with the in person reviews if thereās any interaction that leads to clarifying what kind of info you want and what theyāre trying to say?
What this Nance fellow did was unethical at the very least, if not outright blackmail. Kudos to Phonak for not playing along.
All the info seems to be second hand. I am not saying it isnāt correct but legally inadmissibleā¦ And I say the courts are where it should go if @BarryNance-TestLab can back his claim.
Trade publications often send similar notes to vendors that renege on review participation, especially after an exchange like the following:
_To Phonakās product manager: _
Hi ā
Please, would you characterize the nature of the involvement Phonak would like to have in your participation in a comparative review? Iām curious to know how much support you would lend to the project.
Barry Nance
----------------------------------------
_From Phonakās product manager: _
Hi Barry
Thank you for your detailed information. Not every hearing aid style is suitable for every loss but I am sure we will find the appropriate solution for you. Let me check with our US team to find an audiologist near you that will support you in getting a Virto B-Titanium fitting. As your initial audiologist mentions, a small in-the-ear hearing aid can cause some occlusion, depending on the size of your ear canal we will be able to provide you with a large enough venting to avoid that however.
We certainly want you to be able to test these devices and support you with this. I will get back to you once I have received a note from our US organization.
Thanks
----------------------------------------
_And then also from Phonakās product manager: _
Hi Barry
Someone from our US organization will contact you about the next steps.
Thanks
Such is the rough-and-tumble real world of computer hardware and software reviews. Messy, isnāt it?
And let me reiterate:
Every statement in the review is true and accurate.
No one received any compensation, financial or otherwise, for the review. From anyone.
Unlike in most reviews, every hearing aid product reviewed was actually purchased from a vendor.
Still no survey.
No. You came in with presumptions and biases. Those inherently have no basis in ātrue and accurateā.
Unfortunatelky, youāve lost all credibility at this point due to the manner with which you engaged Phonak. Why would we trust the results?
iHear Medical checking in. The device that Barry āreviewedā and returned to us has clearly been intentionally damaged. There are pry marks on the lid and it is bent/twisted. Barry claims that all this happened as he āremoved the device from his ear.ā A lie plain and simple. I will gladly add pictures of the damaged components if anyone cares to have a look.
The plot thickensā¦
āIt uses advanced technology, sophisticated Digital Signal Processor (DSP) programming and a superior design to deliver clear, natural sounds.ā
This generic statement describes just about any modern hearing aid. Of course everyone has a different idea of what ānaturalā sounds like. With hearing aids there is a significant trial time required to get used to hearing frequencies one has not heard for years so level of HA user experience matters. This is just one example of how your review is flawed. Users who are used to one brand may find a different brand will sound less ānaturalā. It makes the value of that term limited.
Receiving a free HA would count as a financial incentive so you cannot deny you attempted to do that.
Just for the less experienced users who read this thread - I have worn Phonak HAs for almost three years now and found them to be comfortable, durable, well made and providing a good hearing experience. From my reading your description of Phonak aids sounds anomalous. After reading the email you sent them I am not however surprised. You can see why no one here will be inclined to trust you.
Here we have Barryās lid compared to a new one. Barry claims that the adhesive failed and the lid just fell off.
These images clearly show that the lid was removed with force using some type of tool which also crushed the hooks that keep the battery in place. Barry had this device for ~3 weeks. I have additional pictures to upload but am currently limited to 1 due to my new user status.