Yes, same chip but different product, for Example; There are even differences between Opn S 1, Opn S 2 and Opn S 3. Yes all three are the same chip but the Opn S 2 and Opn S 3 are de-featured.
1 Like
No manufacturer is inventing the wheel new just to sell different products on different markets, like we have it here.
If you remove the housing of each of these devices, you’ll see, they have all the identical frame inside. This frame holds also identical components (mics, PCB with the chipset, speaker-connector, battery springs etc.).
On the one hand the hardware inside is usually identical, but that doesn’t mean these devices are compatible. Reason: different firmware or firmware revisions are running on the same chipset. Even the firmware has the same functionality, at least a different brand-ID and device-ID which is programmed in the chip ensures that a device can be detected only by its designated fitting software and only the intended features foreseen for that model will be active.
This is how differentiation works between different brands coming from the same manufacturer. Not only in the hearing aid business, consider what the car industry is doing since decades…
As a consequence:
One manufacturer (in that case: Demant) produces identical hardware, but offers different brands under different price tags in different markets – that means: the profit margin is always most attractive for the premium brand and device in the highest price (and feature) class. That nice profit margin is reduced drastically with the basic or essential class products, but on the other hand this generates more volume and will increase market share.
That’s what I have learned from the sales guys about market strategy. 
Yes, precisely this - it’s all about Market Segregation.
Or at a more basic level - more slices of the pie.
I’m not an expert on hearing aid specifications, but when I did an internet search for the “Technical Data Sheets” to compare the “Philips Hearlink 9010 MiniRITE” with the “Bernafon Zerena 9 MiniRITE,” the graphs for the frequency responses for “2 cc coupler” and “Ear Simulator” are exactly the same. Does this mean that they are the same hearing aids under different names?
No. I think it basically means they use the same receivers. Many of us already think the Bernafon Zerena, Oticon OPN, Sonic and now Phillips use the same receivers. Many of us also are pretty sure that the hardware (computer chip) is the same. What we really don’t know is how much difference is in the software. The OPN has a different approach to noise reduction. The Zerena and Sonic seemed to still use a more conventional directional approach. The Phillips Hearlink?? Looking at the little bit I saw, it seems to claim both.
Can you tell us about the max amount -dB of noise reduction that can be applied in a complex environment for the Philips?
In this reference for comparison, the OPN 3 has a max noise reduction of -3 dB, while the OPN 2 has max -5 dB, and the OPN 1 has max -9 dB.
Bernafon touts their “channel-free” technology. The Oticon Opn 1 has 64 channels. (The Opn 2 & Opn 3 each have 48 channels). I could not find any information on the Philips technical data sheets about channels. Does anyone have more information or thoughts about this? Thanks.
Anybody know how many fitting bands Opn 1, 2 and 3 have and also Zerena? The Phillips premium model has 16.
Regarding fitting bands (according to the technical data sheets):
The premium Zerena9 has 16.
The Opn1 has 16.
The Opn2 has 14.
The Opn3 has 12.
1 Like
Philips audiology confirmed the settings for complex noise reduction give those same three options (-5, -7, -9) in the Philips fitting software.
It is also 64 channels
1 Like
It’s looking like the full featured Opn S line if it has the new Opn S OpenSound Optimizer feedback prevention technology.
eta> maybe not Open technology as @Volusiano says below, maybe Sonic?
Looking at the power plus bte regular earhook, not powerful enough for those with very profound hearing losses.
Just a guess here that the HearLink 2000/3000 are the old Opn tech and the 5010/7010/9010 are actually Opn S 1/2/3 … SoundMap Feedback Canceller seems like it could be “OpenSound Optimizer”…
1 Like
The Phoneme focus and Envelope focus are dead giveaways that this is based on the Sonic Enchant 100 technology, not the OPN technology. I posted a review of the Sonic Enchant 100 a while back and these terms from the Enchant 100 stick out like a sore thumb here.
Adaptive compression is another Sonic Enchant 100 technology that I’m aware of.
Finally, the various directionality options here don’t fit the OPN directionality options. The OPN only had Open Automatic, Full directionality, or Pinna Omni.
There’s a noticeable lack of the keyword “open” here in any of the features, which is the hallmark of the OPN. Such as OpenSound Navigator, OpenSound Optimizer, OpenSound Booster, etc.
2 Likes
As far as I’ve been told, OPN-S doesn’t have the “autophone” setting (whereas first-generation OPN did), In the specs posted here, there is something called “non-telephone ear control,” (similar to autophone?), so that’s different than OPN-S. The only thing that makes me wonder is that there are 4 options for noise reduction–and OPN-S has that with the new “very high” setting they added. I think @AbramBaileyAuD might be right.
Whenever a hearing aid company sells their tech cheaper at Costco, they usually change as much as they can in the naming to obscure the connection between the discounted product and the flagship product. So, I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions there.
1 Like
Some more docs for you all:
Philips HearLink BTE PP (478.9 KB)
Philips HearLink miniRITE T R (548.6 KB)
Thanks for the info.
I noticed full on gain of 66. So these aids would be good for people up to severe loss, maybe a touch profound.
They look nice.