The DIY thing has some advantages in that you can update your old hearing aids to the settings of your new aids and have a better backup, I updated my KS10’s and Bernafon aids to my Rexton Reach settings. The Reach tech is still better but when I travel I bring the Bernafon (replicable battery aids) just in case.
There’s not really a need to update the settings of my old aids. I guess they are more or less the same. My hearing is declining with age, but very slowly. Comparing my Widex on trial with my own Signia Pure 7 from 2017 I don’t hear much difference in speech, music is somewhat better with the Widex.
To be honest my ears (or brains?) aren’t so good in finetuning audio devices. On my aids I have a special music program, but I hardly use it because I hear too little difference with the general program. On my hifi equipment I never use bass, treble, or a equalizer.
I went from Resound One’s to trying the Jabra Pro 20s and didnt notice much improved overall. In fact due to reliability issues i returned the Jabra’s. But the only real area’s i noticed improvement were in wind and the noise from something touching the aids, like hair or glasses. Speech in noise was maybe a little better but hardly noticeable. The size of the aids were much smaller on the 20s but other than that, with my loss, i didnt hear much improvement at all in direct comparison and the difference between the two aids is 3 generations in age. So my answer, at least with GN, is NO.
I change every 3 generations and every time the upgrade is amazing. Everything is better. I am awaiting my new Infinio 90 non sphere this week and with what I have read everywhere I am expecting a big jump in speech, music and now noise cstrong textancelling.
Hey that is really beautiful! Like jim_lewis, I enjoy your changing avatars!
I was born a chattering, quarelsome bluejay, and remain a pesky, cawing bluejay, so I don’t have the flexibilty like you to change who/what I am. 
Oh! Here we go!
3 Likes
Totally agree about the background noise annoyance! I prefer conversations with a minimum number of people talking and NO background music. The reality is that many folks seem to need or want a LOUD, active, challenging environment for their social settings: restaurants, bars, large gatherings. It’s as if they can’t be still in their soul and simply sit quietly or enjoy a more one-on-one experience. Sigh.
As to your earlier question about improvements in generations of hearing aids? Oh yeah. Having worn them for 35 yrs, I’d summarize my personal experience with little incremental improvements clear up to the more recent Phonak Marvel aids. They were about 10% better than the Audio B-Direct. And now my Phonak Lumity Life aids are a good 15% better than my older Marvels.
I judge the improvement by how well I can comprehend speech as being my own personal Holy Grail. That means speech when the person isn’t facing me, or is in a different room/floor calling out to me, or in a noisy place. If I can actually understand what’s being said better with a newer pair of aids, that’s a very positive improvement and an investment in my quality of life worth making.
3 Likes
In 1985 I was in my first job, an office job as a programmer, and I did a trial with hearing aids. It was not a success. The background sounds were nearly as much amplified as the speech. It was tiresome too, so I’ve decided not to get them.
Later in 1996, following a new job, I did another try and these were helping me in significantly in understanding speech.
From then on in 2001, 2007, 2012 it was great to have new ones. Each time the next ones were so much better. Their progression was stronger than the slow decline of my hearing.
My 2017 ones and these I have now as a trial don’t have that improvement.
Streaming and rechargable batteries are nice, but don’t make me understand other people’s speech better and less tiresome.
2 Likes
Geez, I’ve had almost the reverse experience. Little change till my latest pair. But that makes me wonder if you need a better audiologist (or go the DIY route) to get these trial aids SET UP RIGHT. I had a similar experience trialing the Oticon Intent and it was a BUST cuz the audi was impatient, and made it crystal clear that she had no intention of having me come back for follow-on app’ts.
Kiss. Of. Death.
2 Likes
IMO, there are tiny improvements happening every week on each platform. These are segregated into three tracks.
Track 1 involves bug fixes and minor but important reliability fixes that are passed on to the current generation once or twice a year through firmware updates.
Track 2 consolidates improvements that, taken together allow a new generation to be developed, along with associated marketing, to become the next generation product. A Phonak example would be the launch of Paradise over Marvel, or Lumity over Paradise. On average, I’d expect to see these every 2 years or so.
Track 3 takes much longer and results in such substantial improvements that they’re considered game-changers. In the recent past, such game-changers have been marked by the separate incorporation of BLUETOOTH connectivity, use of Deep Neural Networking and AI processing, advent of re-chargeable power sources etc. So far, we’re seeing such products every 4-5 years or so, and are exemplified by the launch of Phonak Sphere incorporating a separate AI processing chip to significantly advance one of the holy grails of HAs, being Speech Processing in Noise.
Track 1 improvements are noticeable but seldom game-changers except for a small number of current users.
Track 2 improvements facilitate noticeable improvements that represents game-changers for people upgrading from technology that may be 2-4 generations old.
Track 3 improvements are often so significant that they hugely enhance life for some people, even those who are users of HAs that are just months to a year or two old.
I see examples of near-termTrack 2 improvements lying in the deployment of BLUETOOTH versions that improve range and lower battery usage, improvements in the battery tech itself with associated longevity benefits, incorporation of auracast connectivity etc.
I see a Track 3 Phonak improvement being dispensing with the separate Sphere chip and incorporation onto the main board, allowing size reduction as well as power consumption benefits. Arguably, Oticon have already achieved that goal in the Intent, as they incorporate the DNN and AI on the main chip already. However, their DNN’s power has a bit to go before it achieves the reported Speech in Noise capabilities of Sphere.
One thing to note is that the OTC producers are snapping at the heels of the big 5 or 6 manufacturers and their offerings will incorporate more and more of the more advanced features at a lower price point. The big 5 or 6 will also be running out of ‘big wins’ as more and more of the hearing loss problem is addressed at an ever increasing rate.
And lastly, Apple! The Airpod Pro 2 firmware update and the iPhone software is going to up-end the market completely. The current version is best thought of as revision 0.3b. Imagine what revision 26.g might look like, running Airpod Pro 29. By the time the Airpod Pro 29 is launched, it won’t even be visible in the ear.
What most people seem to be missing is that the recent FDA approval was NOT an approval of a device or a piece of hardware. It was an approval of a software environment. When Apple gets around to licensing that environment to other manufacturers, will we even be seeing a big 5 or 6 in 10 years or so? I see a rationalisation in the market not unlike the consolidation of mobile phones around Android and IoS that killed off Blackberry, Nokia and other smaller phone makers in the past decade. Will Phonak, Oticon, Signia, Philips, Starkey etc ALL survive with their own separate platforms? I doubt it. It’s likely a consolidation around 2 or 3, incl Apple will occur.
All of this bodes really well for existing sufferers of hearing loss. In addition, many millions of folks who are currently suffering but either ignore it, or suffer but can’t afford its treatment, will finally be able to access affordable solutions with massive personal and societal benefits. No longer will advanced hearing loss treatments be limited to the few, but will be as commonplace throughout the world as the mobile phone has become.
I live in great hope.
2 Likes
I see what you are saying here, but I believe what the Intents are doing is enough. I was out Saturday night in a restaurant and the performance of the Intents in noise was outstanding.
More anecdotal reports will come in I’m sure. But to me it is good news, the Stakey Edge, Oticon Intents and Phonak Spheres are all finally cracking a problem that has been around for 30 years (since the start of digital hearing aids). Hopefully the next couple of releases of each of these aids (and other companies) will show further improvements.
It may well be that Oticon Intents are doing enough for you. However, it may not be enough for the next person. Assessments I’ve seen clearly rank the Speech-In-Loud-Noise management in the order of Sphere-Intent-Edge mostly through the use of AI.
Its really a huge step forward when a user like yourself obtains such an outstanding result from a step- changing development. I have a BIL who moved from More to Real and is very disappointed with the Speech in Noise of that generation. Sadly, he bought Real just before Intents came out and cannot trade up.
What assessments? How are they assessing this?
It’s one thing to assess that noise has been scrubbed, it’s another to prove the efficacy of understanding speech in noise.
Also, what degree of loss does this ranking apply to? I am not convinced by the ranking. No cohorts are mentioned in the hearing tracker assessment (this may be a different assessment to the one you are talking about) - in any case, I am confused as to how this is objectively/subjectively assessed. Even if one does make an assessment of how effectively noise is scrubbed, which I assume is where the Phonaks are the most effective, the next problem is assessing the comprehension of speech amongst multiple talkers.
And by the way, have you seen my loss? It is severe profound. If it doesn’t work for the next person, then I would assume that their SIN tests are off the scale or they have a profound loss.
I am actually a bit nervous about my next set. I’m on the cusp of probs needing a new pair early next year before the batteries start their downward spiral. I left it “8” years between my first set of Oticon & my current 2020 (I think) Phonak Marvels. To me the difference between those 2 were astounding; especially for music which is a very high priority for me. I haven’t researched in depth yet but some side vision browsing has me wondering if I’m in for a let down with my next set where I will want to just replace the batteries & bypass until they are stuffed… 
1 Like
@HomerSimpson surely meant HearAdvisor ranking.
1 Like
Waste of time trying to reply with a meaningful and helpful response in a forum like this, if your efforts are either ignored or subjected to an inquisition .
You can spend quite a while formulating a detailed.amd considered response and the only interaction you get is one that wants to nitpick your efforts because you haven’t specifically addressed their particular circumstances.
Don’t need that… Really don’t!
Read the post! The general answers and observations / comments are in there!. Obviously they’re not oriented to your specific situation; at time of writing and trying to help generally, one didn’t know you even existed!
@HomerSimpson
I really appreciate your insightful post about three Tracks of Improvements.
They are significant and I don’t want to compromise on the importance of them.
You have called ‘Speech in Noise’ one of the holy grails.
Another holy grail, not only for me, is understanding speech in relatively quiet but less favorable circumstances, in small social gatherings, speech less clearly spoken, not face to face, in a foreigh languages etc.
How much have hearing aids improved in this respect? In my limited experience not so much, going from Resound Verso 9 (2012), to Signia Pure 7 px M (2017) and Widex Moment 440 Smart RIC (on trial now). I’m interested to what extent my own experience is typical for people with a similar hearing loss.
Right now I’m seeing an article about Phonak’s Speech Enhancer, which adresses this problem. So maybe there’s more progress in this respect, than I thought.
3 Likes
So sorry, I think you have the wrong end of the stick.
I am just trying to establish two things:
i) Whether the rankings for speech in noise take account of all hearing losses.
ii) if so, do the rankings for speech in noise then take account of the performance in groups, with multiple talkers, which is a distinction I think shouldn’t be ignored. This is more related to speech in quiet I guess.
Of course, this relates to my individual situation. But this should affect the majority of users as well.
Yes, I am invested in knowing the outcomes, but am just interested in knowing if these assessments involve cohort of real people with a range of hearing losses.
I believe they said that they are tested out of the box like the aids are shipped.
Apparently they are shipped with open domes.
The test loss is, one again I believe mild to moderate.
Hearadvisor explains this on the site.
1 Like
I must look into that Phonak Speech Enhancer.
I currently see word recognition as being an issue of fitment as much as of the technology itself. Poor fitment of a great HA will lead to poor outcomes. Tools such as real ear measurement and word recognition testing are too seldom used in the audiologists office. Such tools can help the skilled practitioner to adjust the frequency gains in a granular way to maximise the various vowel and consonant sounds that you’ll find laid out in their frequency ranges in the speech banana.
I currently see the speech in noise issue as being something well disposed to sound analysis in the moment, that can identify and extract the noise from a sound stream, dull it and send the speech remainder to the ears. AI processing of the incoming sounds can learn from the sounds that have been processed over the past range of microseconds to identify the drone of background and subtract it. Differences in the sounds on a microsecond by microsecond basis can then be compared and the speech element extracted and sent to the amplification process to apply the wearer’s prescription to that AI-derived speech and present the overall package to the ears. Tools like REM are then crucial to ensure that the eardrum actually receives the overall package as intended.
I hope this makes sense. I’m probably not using the correct terminologies, and I’m figuring out my thoughts as I’m writing.