No I only use the connect clip with my android tablet and fire tablet
1 Like
Ah, Ha, that’s the key.
I want my cake & eat it, too, so I use my CClip for handsfree phonecalls, and Mute.So I require it paired to my pixel 5a.
If I upgrade to the Intents, and BT LE Audio starts working, I’ll upgrade my phone, so I can retire the old trusty clip.
2 Likes
The information i am read between my VA audiologist and the Oticon rep for the VA clinics here, Oticon is working with Samsung to fix the issues, target data is by mid June.
1 Like
I’ve tried that with my Mores as well but my right ear is a bit tricky. Even though I have MSI set to minimum in my P1, I often struggled to understand speech in not so very complex situations with my Mores (echoey places, dinner table with music in the background, small gatherings). I have had zero issues so far with the Intents in the same situations.
One key difference between them is that the Intents seem to be better at isolating the many voices in the soundscape, while maintaining them all very clear, so I can focus on the one I choose. With the Mores, that separation is not as good and I often end up losing vocal clues from the person I am paying attention to.
2 Likes
For folks who prefer less or no Neural Noise Suppression, it probably makes more sense to buy the lowest tier level for the Oticon aids (tier 3 for More/Real or tier 4 for Intent) because otherwise you’d be wasting your money with the higher level tiers. The key difference between them is the level of Neural Noise Suppression they make available, even though there are other things different as well.
The Neural Noise Suppression, while helping with suppressing noise to help with speech, is a trade-off because you won’t get as clear a speech signal if Neural Noise Suppression is applied. However, if you struggle to understand speech, applying the appropriate level of Neural Noise Suppression is still better than not being able to understand speech at all due to noise. That’s why even if you have more Neural Noise Suppression level available in terms of the max value available, Genie 2 looks at your audiogram (and ACA value if available) and may still apply only the appropriate (albeit lower) level of max Neural Noise Suppress as the default value as deemed necessary.
If it were me, I would have a built-in Speech in Noise assigned to 1 of the 4 programs, set the max Neural Noise Suppression to the highest max value available for the tier level of my hearing aids, set its Directionality Setting to Full Directional, and only use the General program (with more appropriate, albeit a lower level of max Neural Noise Suppression set) with Neural Automatic for Directionality Setting. Then I would use just the General program, even in more complex environment, until I notice that I can’t understand speech in that environment anymore, before I switch over to the Speech in Noise program with the settings above as a last resort.
But if one can understand speech in noise with very little or no Neural Noise Suppression at all, then don’t buy the tier 1 level for sure. Only buy the tier 3 or tier 4 of the Oticon aids, whatever the lowest tier level is available for that model.
2 Likes
Perhaps, but unless you buy the 1 or 2, you lose the accelerometer function as well.
2 Likes
I agree with you, but an important exception should be made for ‘clear dynamics.’ Those who want their Oticon hearing aids to sound nice for music shouldn’t go lower than tier 2. Then, if the price point is not that different, you may wonder why not just go all in and get the tier 1 
And also this.
2 Likes
I agree that the Clear Dynamics is important for music, but specifically to live music only. Streaming music doesn’t need Clear Dynamics because it’s about the input dynamic range of the microphones which are not used for streaming. Thanks for pointing that out, @e1405 !
On the other hand, the whole point of the accelerometer (4D Sensor) is to vary the Neural Noise Suppression value based on the guessed intent for more accurate noise suppression for speech. It doesn’t have any value other than this. So if Neural Noise Suppression is of little or no value for those who prefer to keep the use of NNS to the minimum for the best speech clarity, then the 4D Sensor accelerometer should also have just as little or no value for them as well.
2 Likes
It was my understanding that the accelerometer also determines the directional pattern in an passive sense before any additional processing happens, so you get a louder response ‘bubble’ steered in the direction you turn your head prior to any major signal processing. I’ve had a couple of clients note it happening in real-time, on the Intent and the Encanta top models.
Though I’m willing to accept this might be a misread of the function.
A better term is needed to cover any music heard through the mics. It could be recorded music from speakers or even from headphones placed over the aids.
1 Like
Good point. Maybe “music through the air”?
From headphones over the aids would probably be better served via the telecoil only mode if tcoil is available. But for sure it’s also through the air through the vents (if any) although the mics wouldn’t be working if the tcoil-only mode is deployed.
The Intent doesn’t really elaborate much on the details of how the user’s intent is guessed, but the Philips 9050 does give some details on how its equivalent of the 4D Sensor is implemented in the first screenshot below.
The second screenshot below shows that the 4D Sensors functionality is place just before the MoreSound Intelligence 3.0 DNN. There is some MVDR beam forming (not the traditional directional beam forming) going on in the Intent-based Spatial Balancer, but it’s more to remove some of the droning noise before the NNR actually does the noise removal for speech specifically. The DNN’s Neural Noise Suppression does not employ any kind of directionality beamforming as far as I understand it. It kind of “mimic” the directionality (if any is chosen by the user or the 4D Sensors’ input) by doing a rebalancing of the soundscene with preference to the sound in the directional input from the 4D Sensors (or from the Directionality Setting value chosen by the user).
So if the Neural Noise Suppression is minimized or disabled by a user who prefers to leave speech clarity uncompromised by any kind of NNS, then I think the directionality setting by the 4D Sensors or the Directionality Setting value as chosen by the user will not be suppressed for speech anyway. It might still affect the directionality control for the whole sound scene, but it wouldn’t be for speech only, because NNR is specifically for speech. What I mean is that for example, if Full (frontal) Directionality is the chosen value by the user, or chosen by the 4D Sensors for a particular head movement, and the NNR is disabled or minimized, the sound scene is rebalance for ALL SOUNDS (not just speech only) that are in the front direction.
Anyway, from the get-go, in all marketing literature of the Intent’s 4D Sensors, it’s always been about guessing the user’s intent specifically for speech, not the intent for overall directionality setting. In the marketing video, you see Oticon portrays a man walking around and getting help from the 4D Sensors to engage in conversations with other people around him. There is no other visual depiction of any other kinds of sound that the man is trying to hear beside the speeches from the people around him.
1 Like
The music program with T-coils sounds a little richer than without T-coils. However, I don’t really enjoy the constant hum I get from the coils. How do you get rid of that? I mostly wear my headphones at my workstation, so there are lots of magnetic fields around. I use 0 dB for the mic relative to the T-coil.
If you’re definitely turning all the settings off, then I can see why the Intent 3 is going to be enough. However; I think you’re going to sell yourself short, as you’ll never have potential access to the ‘higher’ functions, including the processing to achieve higher levels of SNR.
This sort of puts you in the boat with those choosing a Real, as it isn’t ‘bleading edge’, which I fully concur with in some circumstances. However, I’m not sure it does you major favours to eliminate options at the outset, without having some ‘could I benefit’ data from the feature up front.
2 Likes
I have tried the t-coils while using my headphones and got a very irritating buzz. I do great with my bose QC25 wearing them mostly over my hearing aids. My custom ear molds block almost all sound from outside my ear canals.
1 Like
Haha, yes, I definitely concur that it would be pointless to pay for the current premium level of Oticon hearing aids if you’re not going to utilize its advanced functionality. You might as well buy the cheapest and oldest Oticon technology like the OPN 3 and be done with it if you’re not going to take advantage of the advanced DNN noise reduction that they have to offer.
I think ultimately that’s what I was trying to get at, that in the pursuit of speech purity above everything else, especially above noise reduction for speech understanding, then it’s needless to get a bleeding edge hearing aid. It reminds me of the times when I occasionally hear from certain folks on this forum lamenting about the golden days of analog hearing aids because they don’t want to be subjected to any compression at all by digital hearing aids in the preservation of sound purity.
1 Like
@e1405 and @cvkemp → I think the hum that you guys hear from the tcoil is electromagnetic interference from some other sources nearby. It’s not really the fault of the hearing aids’ tcoil creating that hum. They just pick it up from whatever nearby source that creates that electromagnetic field. So I’m not sure how to get rid of it unless you can identify the source of the hum and turn THAT off. That’s 1 of the disadvantages of the tcoil technology.
1 Like
It isn’t the hearing aids fault it is the headphones in my case.
1 Like
I do agree with your general point. However, if someone won’t use all the advanced functionality, I think they would be better off getting the Intent 4 (rather than an old OPN 3).
At the moment, I happen to have a pair of OPN 1 (my backups), a pair of More 1 (current hearing aids), and I am trialing the Intents 1. The P1 in these three hearing aids sounds very different. By P1, I mean the general program, as open as it gets, but still applying the functionalities you mentioned. To be quite honest, the difference in audio quality between them is more than just incremental. Each of these works within Oticon’s concept (presenting an open soundscape and helping the user concentrate on what they want to), but the Intents do that much better than the OPNs. No contest. To a lesser degree, but still noticeable, the same goes from Intents to Mores (I have them with the exact same P1).
I have the impression the Intents deliver more resolution, detail, and separation, so the audio is cleaner and more articulated. The OPNs are like when you zoom in on an image and the pixels become blurry (the audio cues are there but crammed together). They are still good, but their resolution is not that great anymore. I don’t know if that analogy is appropriate, I’m just trying to convey what I think I am hearing.
On the other hand, some people may not notice all that and I see how they would be very happy with the OPN 3 
.
3 Likes
At this time, I haven’t received my INTENT1 aids yet, my Real1 and More1 aids both have all possible options enabling just so I can understand speech in my general program. My INTENT1 aids will start with the settings from my Real1 aids copied to them, then they will be optimized with the INTENT1 extras. My aids do have MyMusic program, t-coils with microphones, and lecture program. My general program is set for speech understanding. I have custom ear molds with embedded 105db receivers I don’t have feedback issues, but I will hear a minor bit of feedback if I cup my hands over my ears, but it doesn’t last. I am making notes on changes I would like, removing the lecture program is one, and due to the lack of music interest I am thinking about removing the MyMusic program. I am tossing around the thought of a speech in noise program.