#1

I have one trial pair of Phonak Paradise P90 hearing aids (HA) and one free GN Resound Danalogic Ambio 77 pair from the NHS. My Ambio HA were performing very poorly compared to the Phonak HA so I returned them to the hospital for examination. After the receivers were changed the speech on the TV and radio seemed to be clearer with the Ambio HA, compared to the top of the range Phonaks.

I wanted to do a basic comparison between the two and soon realised the difficulty after swapping the aids whilst listening to the radio in a quiet room. The sound on a radio or TV is continually changing so it is not easy to make a comparison. I tried to find a suitable hearing test online but they require the use of headphones. Does anyone know a method of doing speech in noise or an audiogram type of test, whilst wearing hearing aids rather than headphones? I have tried playing a recording on the TV, winding it back and then replaying it, after swapping aids but it is too difficult to remember the hearing quality between swaps. I realise that many readers will think ā€œIf the quality difference is so marginal that it is difficult to detect, why not just forget it and get on with lifeā€. However, I would still like to know if a more precise comparison test is available.

1 Like
#2

Well I never tried swapping hearing aids while Iā€™m listening to something to determine which I like better. I donā€™t think thatā€™s giving the brain time to adjust. I usually wear one set for a couple of weeks and then wear the other set

1 Like
#3

Why are you using TV/radio to evaluate hearing aid performance rather than your various daily environments?

As youā€™ve observed, the sound from TV/radio sources varies very significantly. Itā€™s possible that one HA would sound better than the other in one source, and the opposite to be true with another source. But more importantly, a radio track is not representative of listening to real speech in various real noise situations.

Furthermore, particularly with television, HAā€™s users with greater than moderate loss (you donā€™t show your audiogram) very often use a tv connector (aka adapter) which not only streams directly into the HAā€™s, but often also provides other tools like an equalizer that can help greatly with speech intelligibility.

IMO you would do better taking a different comparison approach.

3 Likes
#4

I agree with mingus. Test your aids in natural environment. I donā€™t even try with TV. I use closed caption

#5

Update: I ended up writing this because I had a lower-priced set of hearing aids back from repair and I was amazed that they seemed to be better than the expensive top-of-the-range Phonaks. We have been so conditioned into believing that more expensive must be better so I felt I had to try to compare them. I am sort of admitting in the post that my tests are inappropriate and that is why I finish by asking if anyone knows of a more precise comparison test.

#6

At the risk of banging a loud drum again . . . the one and only precise test is what you perceive while trying them in each one of your daily listening environments.

Hearing is subjective. Audiograms are very helpful, but cannot measure the effects of intricacies and subtleties thru your auditory system and in your brain. This is why fittings are a process, not an event, and dependent on the skill (and often art) of the audiologist.

Any device or singular test you choose to measure with will do no better than giving you that particular snapshot, it is representative of nothing more than itself. Now, if you are a classical musician who is immersed in Bach for 12 hours a day, maybe that would be useful. But if you are a normal person (not to say that people immersed in Bach are abnormal, but theyā€™re needs are different) what matters is the people and environs you live and work in. That is your test case.

#7

Hi mingus, I do understand what you are saying but if one of my ā€œdaily listening environmentsā€ is watching TV, doesnā€™t that bring us full circle and back to my original post? I still have the problem of comparing two HAs during that particular task. ā€œWhat you perceiveā€ is still a test, but it is subjective and difficult to allocate marks out of 10.

Years ago my tired grandson was continually grizzling and when I asked him what was wrong he said ā€œI want something, but I donā€™t know what it is.ā€ After trying out hearing aids I now know how he felt. Everything is so subjective, how do I compare e.g. do I go around testing hundreds of sounds (listening environments) and give each HA aid marks out of 10. I cannot explain it because it is like the optician saying ā€œWhich is clearer, this or that?ā€ only hundreds of times worse. Comparisons are so subjective and not based on any sort of datum so I have no idea how to set up the best custom program and I fail to understand how an audiologist can fine-tune aids for you. People who think in black or white can go mad trying to decide on hearing aids.

#8

I may have not understood your original post correctly. If I did not, mea culpa.

I took your post (as did @hass5744) to mean you are using the radio/tv audio to ascertain the performance of two sets of hearing aids for your hearing in general, that is, extrapolating from this comparison to other listening situations. If that is your meaning, this comparison does not transfer to other situations, no more than e.g., a listening in quiet test is of any use when testing performance for speech in noise. Each environment has its differences, and so the user needs to prioritize those environments and then subjectively evaluate each HAā€™s performance in each. If it is easier to use some sort of ad-hoc scoring system of your own creation to record the results of each test, thatā€™s fine although for most people just taking notes is sufficient (and probably most folks donā€™t even do that, no doubt contributing to the low success rate). There is no objective measurement tool for this purpose, because hearing is entirely subjective. Take a minute to write down the listening environments you are in 90% of your time. The list is probably not all that long; far, far less than ā€œhundredsā€. Identify whatā€™s most important (e.g., a spouseā€™s voice, your place of work, etc.) and focus on these. You will find that a small number of environs constitute a large majority of your usage.

Where it becomes particularly challenging is when the HAā€™s come from different providers or the HAā€™s are not programmed to the same target or an insufficient amount of trial time is allotted. These factors can compromise comparisons. Again, there is no objective measurement system to get around this. Itā€™s a matter of you understanding the process and working to ensure comparisons are consistent as much as possible. This is one reason that you see so many here emphasizing the importance of finding a very good audiologist who can cooperatively guide you through the process. The audiologist starts with your audiogram and then will fine tune the instruments based upon your subjective feedback, just as optometrists or medical doctors do all the time. The patient and the provider are making judgment calls. This process while based on science, also involves a good bit of art on the part of the provider.

But if what you are asking about is just how to make a radio/tv comparison specifically, well, the answer is essentially the same as it is for any other use case, per the above. Ensure that your test is consistently the same, and ensure that the HA solution is consistent (e.g., a music program added by the audiologist to each set of HAā€™s, customized to your hearing loss). Your subjective experience is the test output.

As an engineer, I worked with objective technical measurement systems all the time as well as clientā€™s subjective evaluations of technology, too. No different with HAā€™s. Start with the former (the audiogram, etc.), proceed to latter (fine-tuning against your identified test cases).

HTH.

1 Like