I have total faith in this being “independent” and free of any bias.
I’m glad to see this sort of project. Hopefully it adds to the knowledge base used by potential customers.
That said, I don’t think “objective criterion” tell the whole story. To illustrate, I frequent a classical guitar site. Often, people make posts about various guitars and and their makers. Which are the best? Despite decades of attempts at objective measurements, there is no consensus. Not even close to one. Our lived experiences of sound are particular to each one of us. In terms of our own lived reality, what’s “objective” is what “I” experience. And so, it all comes back to trying out different aids and deciding which work best, as best we can.
all of this is meant to question the rating system developed by Hear Advisor. A machine can’t hear. If you say “boo!”, it won’t have a startle reflex. If Richter plays Mozart on the piano, it will not be moved. It can’t be moved. A machine has no experiences. Human hearing, on the other hand, is always caught up in lived experience. So, again, ‘objective’ measurements may be good for robots. They can only be an information point for humans.
I agree… but the data also clearly passes the gut check… One example is this series of data showing how 4 cheap Amazon hearing aids stack up against their medical model peers:
At the end of the day, the data separates the good from the bad, but within the “normal range” for “good” products, I would not say that the data will accurately identify any “best” hearing aid for any individual with great accuracy. As you say, that will be largely down to the individuals own preferences and experience with different models.
3 Likes