OPN 1 or Evoke 440?


#21

Fusion2? I haven’t heard of that model. Is it new? I thought the Evoke was their latest and Beyond was before that. Oh, I see, there are Evoke Fusion 2s and Beyond Fusion 2s. Confusing. Which are you planning on?


#22

Fusion 2 is one of RIC models of the Widex. It’s available across platform lines. I’ll be getting the 440 Evoke version.


#23

Hi Mark, I’ve had a pair of Evoke 440s for the last two months. Honestly, I think they’re amazing; I think I wrote a fairly detailed review here on it in September; my review’s here

Happy to answer any questions. I do like Soundsense as well. Still unsure about the AGC speed on them; they’re very good at sudden sounds but do seem to take a little longer than perhaps I’d prefer returning to normal.


#24

That was a very good review. Thanks. I should have mine in a couple of weeks and I’ll post a review after I played with them awhile.


#25

If you have the opportunity or spare program slot for it, definitely give Impact a go; it really makes a huge difference in noisy situations for me with speech. It didn’t feel like it made a huge difference in the 5 minutes with my audiologist but two months on and several really noisy situations later, it’s very much my preference now!


#26

I’ll do that. As important as music is to me (which was the reason I was attracted to the Widex in the first place) speech in noise is the holy grail. For that my present aids have been quite good. My hearing has deteriorated though and having the lowest power receiver they are about maxed out I think. And technology keeps improving.

I have only worn aids for the past three years (should have done it much earlier) so the Alta 2 is the only experience I’ve had. I have to say they have been rock solid as I’ve not had a single problem with them and I can’t overstate the difference they made for me. But musically their performance is disappointing. Now it may be that I’m looking for something that simply isn’t there in a hearing aid. That tiny little speaker that fits in your ear can’t possibly duplicate what is coming out of a fine set of hi fidelity speakers. Especially on the bottom end. Nevertheless I’ve got to go looking for some improvement.

I’ve already downloaded the app and checking it out in demo mode. Certainly far more advanced and feature packed than the Alta2.

Thanks for interacting!


#27

I have had both. I initially got the Opn1 but it wasn’t working for me, clarity wise and also for speech in noise. The Evoke was better initially but my hearing is declining so rapidly that it’s hard to compare. My WRS is now only 40% because I have so much distortion. I do wear the widex but I now barely use the sound sense learn and just use the universal setting all the time.


#28

Yes I am wearing the Quattros. They are indeed very very good.


#29

So tomorrow morning at 10:30 I’m going in the AuD to get my profile updated and order a set of Evoke Fusion2 440s. I’ll be interested to see how much my hearing has deteriorated in three years.


#30

Home from the audiologist. Audiogram was not significantly different showing minor losses but speech recognition in the left ear deteriorated significantly. From 72% @ 80 dB to 44% @ 80dB. Bummer. Ordered the Evoke 440 Fusion 2. She noted that she did not get too many requests for the Widex and so is going to schedule the Widex rep to assist in the fitting on Nov. 20th. She encouraged me to take advantage of the personalization aspect of the Evoke and how well it works for me as she is interested in some first hand feedback.

She agreed that the Widex has a sound more congenial to music but with my upper register loss believed that the Phonak would serve me better for speech. So I will trial the Evoke and if I am not happy with speech I will try the Phonak Marvel. Music is important to me and so I want very much for the Widex to work.


#31

My audi is pretty forthright with me, too, and admits that she is learning ReSound Remote Assist as we go - I guess she has gotten next to no patients before me who wanted to employ that feature - but as I’m sure you feel, it’s great to have an audi who wants to work with you and help take you where you want to go.


#32

She’s terrific. Endless patience when answering questions and open when it comes to explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each of the major brands. She knows I’ve already done my research, asks up front which one or ones I’m leaning toward and asks me why and what it is I like about them. I was there for almost two hours.


#33

Same thing is happening to me. I had a hearing test done in January and there were only minor changes from my first test in the fall of 2015. My loss is asymmetrical (big difference between the left and right) and so the Audiologist sent me to an ENT for a cat scan to check for an Acoustic Neuroma. I was clear. But now, between January and November my WRS has gone from 72% to 44% on the left side. Distortion is a good way to put it. She stuck a plug in my right ear and spoke to me and it sounded muffled and, for lack of a better analogy, as if she had a mouth full of water. Depressing.

So she wants to check that again in 3 mos. if the deterioration continues at that rate she wants me to see the ENT again for another check. You might want to think about that as well. My sister had an Acoustic Neuroma that was small and relatively inactive but eventually started to grow at an unacceptable speed and so had to have it removed. Gamma knife surgery was the procedure used and she lost 70% in that ear. Not what I want.


#34

So, Widex’s original boost in dynamic range was from a hardware improvement. When I ask Oticon and others about what they changed to get their increased dynamic range they always get really vague and flap their hands a bit. Does anyone know whether other companies have managed to adopt Widex’s hardware change, or are they all just doing it via software? Not an engineer here, my background is in brain sciences, so extra discussions/clarifications on this would be enjoyed.


#35

Actually, I do have an acoustic neuroma! You should be getting an MRI to diagnose for it, not a cat scan, btw


#36

It was an MRI. I misspoke.


#37

Since the problem is mic distortion on the input side I don’t see how it could be done with software? Software, AFAIK, only addresses what is received. It seems to me they would be laundering out distortion.


#38

Yeah, that’s why I ask. So that they can say “hardware”. But so far they haven’t, which always seems a bit suspicious in contrast to Widex being so clear about what they changed.


#39

Not sure what hardware improvement means from the Widex perspective. Did they say it’s a new hardware platform that enabled them to achieve this level of input dynamic range? Or better microphone that enabled that?

In theory a 16 bit analog to digital converter gives 96 dB dynamic range. A 24 bit ADC gives 144 dB. Assuming that the mic is able to handle the louder sound pressure, the hardware platform must also be designed to support 24 bit resolution on the ADC to give a higher dynamic range. So from this perspective, if the older hardware platform was only designed for a 16 bit system, then a new hardware change to support 24 bit and above would be considered a hardware improvement in my opinion.

I don’t know about the others, but the OPN was built on the new Velox platform and it makes total sense that they wouldn’t limit their new hardware platform to 16 bit processing only.


#40

I reckon, the DAC sampling has gone up but they do it from a higher floor. The Widex change allowed them to create a mic with a lower noise floor and higher voltage so less amps. Even if you didn’t hold the patent to use this, you could start your sampling at 20dB say, to 136-140dB and have zero distortion even at crazy SPL.

A bit of a low pass filter at the input stage to wash off the mic noise and you’re sorted.

(20 Bit IIRC)