Have you had any trouble with noises like running aerated tap water being too loud (I see Sierra has mentioned this as an annoyance, too, in trying DSL5). I tried DSL5-Adult as implemented in ReSound’s Smart Fit software to replace ReSound’s Audiogram+. On a speech-in-noise test, it worked pretty well but when I ran the kitchen sink faucet or even scraped my slippers across the kitchen tile floor, the sounds seemed way too loud. Just interested in how others who like DSL5 accomodate to the greatly increased high frequency amplification.
I haven’t tried the DSL5 Adult with running water, but simply by noticing that it seems to increase the mid and high frequencies more than VAC+, I can already imagine and wouldn’t be surprised that my perception of this water running sound would be magnified and annoying to me as well like your experience with DSL5 Adult.
That’s why I still prefer to stick with VAC+ for most of the times. I would only resort to trying out the other fitting rationales if/when I find it challenging to hear speech in a particular situation.
So far, the only situation I run into that has challenging speech clarity is when listening to a female voice behind me in a moving car at freeway speed. The DSL5 Adult gives me the additional boost in the mid and high that I need to help me hear this better. Otherwise, VAC+ is much more preferred by me, even when listening to speech in noise as long as the speech is in front of me or on the sides.
@Volusiano - Thanks for the feedback. Your idea of having different programs set up using the different algorithms is very clever. I’ll have to see if it can be done for my Quattro’s since it would make comparing algorithm efficacy in a variety of real listening environments so much easier! Maybe you will start a new trend in phone app software!
Actually the original idea was not mine. @Neville mentioned this in a post in response to a thread I created and solicited his input on something. I just thought that he had a very clever idea that I wanted to try out, so I just executed on his idea for myself to see how it goes. So credit goes to @Neville on this.
Thanks. I’ll correct my suggestion to Quattro users to give Neville credit for suggesting and you for trying and finding it useful. I’ve seen the recalculate option a bunch (this program or all?) but the idea never occurred to me! Duh!
That’s interesting. It’s very common for people to prefer the worse ear to be a bit underfit relative to the good ear, and some manufacturer softwares will try to to that automatically, some only for their own targets, some for all, etc. Typically I am doing it manually. But I have wondered, if you stick with the asymmetical perception, how long it would take for the brain to readapt. I used to run experiments that involved biasing people’s sound localization judgements by fatiguing one ear, and it actually only took a few minutes to distort an individual’s perception, but in a very artifical task. Mind you, that was a consequence of neural fatigue rather than adaptation. I’d probably guess, again, that it would be easier to adapt the mid and loud sounds than the soft sounds, but that’s a gut feeling and I have to really dig in to the literature to find even a hint of support for that.
For me the first fitting for my aids seemed to be “unbalanced”, it seemed that my right ear was not hearing as much as my left. My left is a little better than my right. When I went back in my Audi did make an adjustment that seems to balance my hearing out. I don’t know what was changed. And I was watching him click through a bunch of settings and a few screens.
Below are the 4 different fitting rationale for my hearing loss. The first one is VAC+ (Oticon’s proprietary one), second one is DSL5 Adult, third one is NAL-NL1, and fourth one is NAL-NL2.
As you can see, the VAC+ above has much lower amplification on the left ear than the right ear. And this gives me the most balanced feeling between both ears.
DSL5 Adult above has more amplification, especially on the left side. I’ve found DSL5 Adult to be most helpful for speech understanding in the situation where I’m in the front passenger seat in a moving car at freeway speed and trying to listen to a female voice directly from behind me.
NAL-NL1 above is not as agressive, and tends to be a more linear ramp up then ram down with a sharp peak at the top. But the left side is still more amplified compared to the VAC+.
NAL-NL2 above is a bit more subdued and the peak more rounded out, and the left and right side seem to peak out roughly at the same amplification, although at different frequencies. I seem to get the least clarity on speech in noise with NAL-NL2, To the point where I decide to remove NAL-NL2 from my list of programs.
I’m a bit surprised because I would have thought that the NAL-NL2 is the latest and most popular fitting rationale between all of the standard ones (not counting VAC+ which is not a standard). So I had the expectation that it would give me the best sounding rationale amongst the standard. Turns out my expectation was wrong for my case.
The last screen shot above is my in-situ audiometry result overlayed on top of my original audiogram (colored lines are the in-situ, gray lines are the original), shown here just for reference. As a side note, the only reason I gave up amplification at the 6 and 8KHz points (as seen on the chart as no hearing loss) is because even at the highest amplification, neither of my ears can really hear anything there but the low frequenccy buzzing noise of the overdriven receiver. So I’d rather not try to amplify where I can no longer hear anything anyway, in order to minimize distortion that may interfere with other areas.
Oh, sorry, that’s the oppozite of what I thought you said.
I get closer each day with only needing the default program. I am also getting closer each day of not needing to make volume level changes