I seem to recall an article on Hearing Tracker which in essence stated that you really only need 4 channels for good quality hearing.
So many aids have way more than that. Example: Audeo Marvel has 12,16 or 20 channels depending on if you get the 50,70 or 90 series.
Aside from channels all the Marvels seem to have similar features.
Simple question: are more channels better and at what point is it overkill where I will see no further benefit from additional channels? Seems silly to spend money for bragging rights if the more channels do nothing to improve my hearing…
Everything I’ve read suggests that 12 is plenty. Although often advertised, channels is not something to base one’s decision on. However, some hearing aids with more channels will have other features that might be valuable to you.
As my Audi told me that channels don’t always mean the Sam as setting up an equalizer, channels are used for many other options. And also for filters and sound recovery
If you watch Dr. Cliff’s video on the Evokes, one of his criticisms is that it doesn’t offer enough channels to adequately adjust hearing in all circumstances for a good REM fit. Don’t remember the numbers but it’s worth listening to the review to learn about the really good features the latest Evokes have, too.
Even a hearing aid with 64 channels will still have only up to about 15-16 handles or bands (to adjust amplification). I remember Dr. Cliff Olsen was reviewing some hearing aid model and a minus he pointed out was that it only has 10 handles as opposed to 15 handles, which is no huge deal, but still will limit the audi’s ability to fine tune the adjustment to a more detailed level.
Alhough users may not be able to tell the difference between a 64 channel hearing aid and a 12 channel hearing aid, strictly based on the channel difference, a higher # of channels still usually indicates a higher premium level of hearing aid compared to a 12 channel hearing aid.
The number of channels aid in the background processing for auditory analysis, feedback cancellation, noise reduction, etc. So while you may not benefit directly and be able to tell a difference, you’d still be able to benefit indirectly thanks to more sophisticated and complex signal processing and analysis, made more advanced thanks to a higher number of channels.
And even worse consider that the typical audiogram that they base the adjustment on only has 8 points. And on top of that consider that the basic adjustment prescription formulas like the NAL-NL2 uses a very smoothed curve.
Number of needed channels, bands,or handles, whatever you want to call them, depends on the configuration of the hearing loss and your typical listening environment. If you have a steep precipitous loss and are in a lot of noisier places, you need more channels. If you have a flat or mild sloping loss and are in quiet surroundings talking one on one or one on two, then three or four channels would probably be adequate. There is no magic number of channels that is optimum for everyone.
I agree that in theory more channels and gain handles will let the gain be adjusted more closely to the required amount, especially if it varies a lot vs frequency. However, the problem I see with my new set of HA’s (48 channels, 20 handles) is that the fitter has to use NAL-NL2 targets in the REM process, and it seems to be a very smoothed out target compared to the manufacturer proprietary targets. See the fitting curves below for the left ear. The loss can be corrected much more accurately with more channels and handles using the manufacturer SmartFit prescription, but the NAL-NL2 curve doesn’t use them. I guess my point is that in theory more are better, but at the end of the day if the fitting prescription does not use them, then it is a moot point.
