Music fidelity comparison of Phonak Infinio Sphere with Oticon Intent

Hearing Aids
,
#1

See my previous posting for a comparison of speech recognition in noise between these two hearing aids.
For this music test, I played tracks from the audio recording “The Ultimate Demonstration Disk” (The Chesky Guide to Critical Listening). I played these over a very good (but not audiophile quality) high-fidelity system with a Sony receiver and Bang & Olufsen 3702 Beovox speakers. Both hearing aids were put into the supplied “Music” program, which should eliminate compression and other active noise cancellation.
Listened critically to three tracks:

  1. Spanish Harlem, Rebecca Pidgeon (High Resolution)
  2. Grandma’s Hands, Livingston Taylor (Midrange Purity)
  3. Sweet Georgia Brown, Monty Alexander (Visceral Impact)
    Oticon is better is the high-resolution track:
    • Shakers sound more real and more discernable
    • Better acoustic bass timbre
    • A little better clarity with the voice.
    For midrange purity, the Oticon is more crisp, transparent, with higher clarity
    For visceral impact, the Oticon is crisp, with good dynamic range. On the Phonak, the drums are not crisp, and everything is muddled. This was the worst performance of the Phonak Infinio Sphere.
    Subjective scores:
    High resolution: Infinio Sphere 4/5, Intent 5/5
    Midrange purity: Infinio Sphere 4/5, Intent 5/5
    Visceral impact: Infinio Sphere 2.5/5, Intent 5/5
    A month or so ago, I conducted the same test with the Intent 2 vs Intent 1. The Intent 1 was very slightly better to my ear. Interestingly, for word recognition testing (with and without noise), the Intent 1 and 2 scored virtually the same.
    My previous post showed that the Infinio Sphere is significantly better than the Intent for speech in loud noise. Since music listening is only slightly less important to me than speech intelligibility in loud restaurants and parties, I’m in a bit of a quandary. I do wonder if my audiologist can improve the supplied Music program for the Infinio Sphere.
11 Likes
#2

Phonak hearing aids are highly customizable.

If your audiologist is skilled enough, they should be able to more closely replicate the Oticon’s frequency response on the Phonak Infinios on the dedicated Music programs (or a separate manually activated Music program).

One possible way to achieve this is for them to activate the Oticon music program, run a real ear measurement trace for soft, medium and loud inputs (thus determining frequency response and compression ratios to aim for) and then tune the Phonak to match. This actually has a high likelihood of success as signal processing features unique to both brand will be disabled on the music program.

4 Likes
#3

Not necessarily: if Phonak uses a different processing methodology, feedback management techniques (including Peak shifting) and has different intelligent/dynamic controls the ‘flavour’ of the output will be different. Especially if the Sphere’s emphasis has been biased to perform optimally in the ‘Speech in Noise’ setting.

You can use REM to A:B match two devices in a test environment, but with aids doing more independent decision making, the AI can walk the response away towards a different desired output under real world conditions.

#4

Your point, of course, is somewhat valid; hearing aids certainly have their own “flavour” or sound profile, and this of course is directly related to their signal processing approach, precalculation methodology and compression approaches.

However as I indicated, the differences in processing methodology on Music programs are less significant because on Music programs, sound processing features are often disabled, or heavily tuned down, levelling the playing field.

Infinio’s emphasis in noise or AI processing is irrelevant, as that feature is specific to the “Speech in Loud Noise” program whilst DaleM1’s issues are related to music appreciation (which exist on an entirely different program, which is separately programmable within Phonak’s fitting software and accessible by DaleM1). There is also little risk of the hearing aid “walking away” from the intended response if it is set to a static program, which is what I believe DaleM1 is doing.

The biggest concern for me would actually revolve around Phonak’s newer compression approach, which incorporates a dual kneepoint compression system, which may be part of the issue.

So will it be exactly the same? No, but I didn’t say it would be, I said the Phonak hearing aids could more closely replicate the Oticon’s frequency response, and this is most easily verifiable via real ear measurements, just like an audio engineer would calibrate an audio system for a particular room or audio system.

Most importantly (in my opinion), I wanted to indicate to DaleM1 that there is a potential solution to his quandary. He can have the experience of Music via his Phonak hearing aids to be improved, which is more realistically achievable than the Oticon improving performance in noise.

Of course, I am interpreting the situation solely on limited information, but looking at DaleM1’s explanation, his feedback strongly relates to high frequency sounds (shakers, acoustic bass timbre, crispness, etc), so if I was his clinician I would be trying to sample what the Oticons are doing in the higher frequency range (4 - 8 kHz) and trying to emulate that with the Phonaks.

3 Likes
#5

I have Sphere i90s on trial.

Listening on my desktop system – Focal Solo 6 Pro monitors fed by an SPL Director Preamp/DAC, I find the top end of these to be fairly brittle to the point of almost spitty. I tried some tunes via an HQ Tidal stream as well as some hi-rez flacs.I can’t say that I am impressed . . .

2 Likes
#6

I couldn’t get the Lumity L90 I trialed to sound good with music, despite trying all my usual tricks. Perhaps the Infinio have similar issues in that regard. I ended up returning the Lumitys and sticking with my Oticon More 1, which offered much better sound quality for music (among other reasons). Now, I’m wearing the Oticon Intent 1, and they perform better than the Mores for both live and streamed music.

1 Like
#7

Thank you all for your ideas (and, e1405, for your discouragement (I guess) :-))

The muddiness is especially noticeable with loud snare drum strikes, which is like an impulse function (which contains all frequencies). So I’m not sure that tuning the 4 - 8 kHz range will do the trick. It’s certainly true that increasing the low frequency response will result in a delayed decay of the impulse, but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. I think it may be phase inaccuracy, which occurs in loudspeakers and is much more difficult to measure than frequency response. The effect of phase inaccuracy is time-smearing of the signal, which would explain at least some of the issues I’m having.
I forgot to mention that the Intents have custom ear molds (very small vent in each one), and the Sphere 90s (trial version) just have vented domes. I would think this would affect low frequency response, but not time smearing. But maybe I’m wrong.
I see the audiologist on Thursday, and will see what she can do.
Interestingly, the Hearing Tracker scoring gave the Sphere a 4.2 for music streaming and the Intent a 4.0. Now, I know streaming ain’t the same and listening, but still …

#8

@DaleM1 Rebecca Pidgeon “Spanish Harlem” WOW!!
That Chesky disc isoutstanding, but just that one song is amazing!
Oticon Intent 1 Boston Acoustics speakers, Denon Stereo amp!
BTW, I deleted the MyMusic app, and hand crafted a custom app, using Sennheisher HD 6XX cans.

2 Likes
#9

Music is more than frequency response. Tone is important to music, but so is ability to reproduce starts and stops, pace, loudness & dynamics, etc., etc., etc. I don’t know about music programs.

Reproducing a top notch LP is a useful test, but so is quality of reproducing normal LPs (or CDs, etc. for that matter). The biggest test is whether or not the music gets through the unnatural artifacts of recordings - clicks/pops on vinyl, whatever they do on CDs (not a fan of digital music).

#10

Acoustic coupling will certainly influence the quality of music, and so you should certainly move to custom earmoulds on the Phonak hearing devices, as reduce the risk of comb filtering (this could be what you are describing as time smearing) via direct and amplified sound, and could even improve performance in noise more.

You didn’t mention snare in your initial post however snare is often characterized by a fundamental note (around 200 Hz, but can be lower), a “crack” at around 2 kHz and finally upper harmonics in the 4 - 8 kHz range. This can also vary quite substantially considering the type, recording and technique of the drummer. Muddiness is also a very subjective word; typically muddiness is often associated with too much low-mid frequency range (300 - 500 Hz), however as previously outlined, you could be missing any or all of those typical snare characteristics, and reporting it as being muddy as a result.

Phonak hearing aids also support a useful feature called “Real Time Display” otherwise referred to as a Real-time analyzer, which provides a visual display of inputs to the device per channel. Once you have organized to use custom earmoulds, I would also encourage you to bring in your own music to the clinic (or pay for an in house consultation using your system) where the audiologist can examine the visual display of the hearing aid output, thus determining any particular emphasized frequencies that are not to your liking.

#11

So ask for them to be adjusted?

Hearing aids are optimized to enhance clarity of speech, use small transducers, and are mostly designed to operate in acoustic fittings that are less than ideal for reproducing music (open fittings).

My preferred setup for Phonak hearing aids and streaming are Power receivers with at least a double dome fitting, but even still I have to substantially modify the frequency curve from default settings, but the great thing is that I can do this without affecting other programs.

1 Like
#12

This is a personal journey, so don’t be discouraged. My hearing loss is mostly conductive, and I usually keep the digital features of my hearing aids at a low level. What works for some might be unbearable for others :slight_smile:

#13

It’s a trial that is getting returned tomorrow but I suspect that it is the hardware involved – not just tuning. Since I come out of the high end audio and Pro music industry, I know how good headphones – and in-ear-monitors can sound. I suspect that it is the driver or amplifier that they are using. I know it is possible to get great sound from balanced armature drivers because I had a pair of molded Earsonic in-ear-monitors (3 x BA drivers) that had a smooth and silky top end. I know that it is a different product for a different purpose but I also know what is capable. I intend to test something from Intent as per the recommendations here, and certainly the Widex ha that I hear is one of, if not the the best for music listening.

2 Likes
#14

I don’t think that’s a fair apples vs apples comparison and I fear you’re always going to be disappointed with hearing aid technology if you go in with that mindset. To use a poor analogy, what you’re effectively saying is that your Peavey Solidstate guitar amplifier has a tube in the power amp section, and therefore it should sound as good as your friends Mesa Boogie Mark V, because hey, they both use tubes!

Of course hearing aids would sound better if they also had multiple drivers and could be driven by an external amplifier with high quality analog to digital converters, however the reality is most hearing aids have to cram all components into the same space (or less) than your preferred IEMs.

I’m sure manufacturers of hearing aids would also be able to deliver “silky top end” as well if they weren’t

  • limited to single drivers;
  • powering said single drivers by a tiny power efficient onboard amplifier;
  • also designing products that served a clinical function, mostly aimed at improving clarity of speech.

In fact, a good example of this is the Sennheiser products that leverage Sonova technology found in their hearing aids (Sennheiser TV Clear Set). These sound substantially better than their hearing aid counterparts for music simply because they can use larger drivers.

Having said all of that, Widex does offer a unique “zerodelay” processing philosophy which may be exactly what you’re after if music is most important to you. They also have a number of high profile musician ambassadors, which may also convince you that their music sound quality is best in class.

2 Likes
#15

I think that this is the reality unfortunately.

I am just starting my search and I still have an upcoming app’t with an ENT - because of the r-l discrepancy in my test - so I am not going to rush my decision. I visited 2 shops near me (there is also a Costco in-between them :wink:) and one of them stuck the Spheres in my ears with a rudimentary fitting and told me to come back in a week. I accepted the opportunity to demo them but I doubt that she will get my business.

Thanks for your thoughts.

1 Like
#16

I completely agree – played on a really good system, this piece is life affirming! While the tests I reported on here were based on my office system, a while back I built a pair of 2-1/2 way floorstanders from a Troels Gravesen design, driven by a 20-year old Nad receiver. On this syteem, this piece is absolutely amazing.
Interestingly, the Phonak’s do quite well with this piece. I think it’s because of the resonance/reverberation in the recording.

#17

The phenomenon I’ve described could well be comb filtering. As I understand it, the most likely cause would be the addition of the live signal (received through the earpiece vents) with the 6ms-delayed processed signal. The custom earmolds I have for the Intents have a small vent (~1mm), which should allow some mixing as well. I’m definitely going to return the Intents and purchase the Sphere 90s with custom earmolds. Hopefully you are correct, and the problem goes away. But I have my doubts, because the vented domes I’m using with the trial Spheres also have very small vents.
I’m fairly certain that my perception of the snare drum with the Spheres is not because I’m missing some of the frequency bands. Yes, muddiness is a subjective term. I believe that what I’m hearing is time-smear (from comb filtering, phase inaccuracy, or other – both the rise and fall times of the snare drum hit seem stretched, giving the drum a lack of crispness.
Thanks for your thoughts on this.

1 Like
#18

I’d like to know more about this. So the audiologist can visualize both the input and processed signal in the frequency domain? How does this help?

#19

Music is very important to me (amateur mallet percussionist), but speech is critical. I am so tired of going to a restaurant with my family and being entirely out of the conversation. It’s bad enough that our society views old people as irrelevant, but deaf and irrelevant is like a non-entity. So I’m getting the Sphere 90s, which are life-changing for me, and will do what I can to improve music performance.

5 Likes
#20

I have much more pronounced asymmetry than you and have been through the MRI route to rule out an acoustic neuroma. My first pair of hearing aids were from Costco, and I really like their business model – service oriented, no hard sell. But I think my needs are now more than they can support. I’ve been to a few small audiology shops, and my experience has been hard-sell and up-sell (although I am sure there are some great small shops). Now I’m going to the audiology department of my primary care medical service, and couldn’t be happier. The audiologist coordinates with the otolaryngologist, is paid a salary and not a commission, and is willing to go the extra mile to help satisfy my needs. More expensive than Costco, but higher-end products, too.

1 Like