OTC hearing aid ads

Hearing Aids
#48

Actually the biggest factor is cost, which can incorporate no longer needing to visit any audiology clinic, which is what DIY is all about. You’ll probably be aware that most clinic’s don’t even bother with REM anyway.

Totally agree, and the results can be quite acceptable to a lot people.

Again I agree with this statement, and I’d include the reviews you sometimes see on this forum, hearing is very subjective, federal/government subsidies for independent testing is definitely something that should be looked into.

1 Like
#49

“Well, actually…”

What I intended to convey is that not needing the assistance of an audiologist (and especially not REM, which is not possible without an audiologist) is the point of an OTC device. That this reduces cost was, I thought, obvious. Maybe I should spell everything out in future though.

#50

Ummm, well it didn’t actually come across as that, but good we’re on the same path.

So the cost savings are in the technology as well, not just the savings from audiology clinics, having them sold online is the “bonus” factor as well, a lot of people who live in remote areas are going to benefit from OTC as well, I’m actually willing to go as far as saying in the next few years as OTC takes off, we will see a lot more “features” offered in both hardware and software to allow adjustments that will be pretty close to “premium” prescription models.

#51

Yes, for many.

…

1 Like
#52

The big question is, will the aid actually match it?

This concept of prescriptive targets might be worth talking about in detail.

As I understand it, NA-NL2 is currently the most common formula for for fitting HAs. This link has an overview:

There are other methods, but the general idea is that you can derive the desired amplification in each frequency band from an audiogram. And widely-adopted formulas for doing this exist.

But the question remains, is the device actually capable of delivering that amplification in each frequency band, or is it not calibrated correctly to deliver the desired results from the derived amplification levels given your specific ear anatomy (the shape of which will resonate at certain frequencies, increasing and decreasing volumes in certain bands)?

Any current-generation OTC device will be attempting to match a given audiogram, but many - or even most - may not be capable of (or may programmed in software to stop short of) hitting prescriptive targets the way an audiologist-fitted HA can.

To your question, an apparently underperforming OTC aid might be performing as designed while still amplifying at levels significantly lower than the expected amplification using industry-standard formulas. Is this to please new HA users? For safety? To ensure cheaper devices can’t measure up to “premium” ones? Will it stay that way as the market matures (assuming it does)? Hard to say.

1 Like
#53

We don’t know if the other hearing aids he tested sell for the same price. We don’t know which ones he’s reviewed or how many–so we don’t really know what the comparison is that he’s making. I went to his audiology practice website thinking maybe I’d find those answers there but didn’t see any OTC reviews. I guess if I really wanted to know I’d have to search through his YouTube videos for each review. Not gonna happen.

1 Like
#54

He has indeed similarly analyzed numerous OTC-type HAs, videos on which are readily available on his YouTube channel. But as you say, you’re not interested so it’s a moot point.

#55

@greg.smith: Neither am I interested in DrCliff’s SnakeOilManship. So it’s a mute point for me, too (… I’ll shut my yap, therefore, as the term implies).

1 Like
#56

Moot point, for interest’s sake. :slightly_smiling_face:

#57

Yes, I know. Here’s the full explanation, for interest’s sake:

#58

This is why we need more forum members to review what’s being offered in the OTC market, I’m sure that over the coming months we’ll see a few, don’t forget that the Bose SoundControl has already been reviewed, I’d say their latest respective versions will be quite similar, as they state powered by “Bose” (for whatever that means)

1 Like
#59

What’s to stop a company from releasing their 10 or fifteen year old prescription aids as OTC for, what, $600.00. These won’t compete with their current models, require no R and D and manufacturing costs are likely minimal. Maybe they’d have to program in self programming capabilities, but probably not. fifteen years ago, HA’s were still very good! This would be a boon to many many people.

#60

I’m not an expert, just a user.

:slight_smile:

1 Like
#61

They are already doing this, but not that old, a few platforms behind is all that needed.

1 Like
#62

@Zebras: Wrong, Zebes - I think you qualify in many respects as an “expert user”. (You certainly are a “go-to” for help with that Phonax kit you wear, and have helped many.)

2 Likes
#63

@SpudGunner

Thank you. I appreciate your kind words.

:slight_smile:

#64

@Zebras : Totally earned credits, Zebes!

2 Likes
#65

The ability to program in the self help part is the big issue. Those old aids won’t have any BT at all. They typically were programmed with delicate cables / special adapters and software. I think the effort to make those user self programmable would be harder than what we’ve been seeing.

WH

1 Like
#66

Just to clarify, FWIW, I meant I was looking for a quick list of aids he’s reviewed in order to answer my questions but didn’t find that. I don’t have time or inclination to hunt through a long string of YouTube videos to put together such a list.

#67

Just to add another piece of info for the new OTC market watch-out-fors, in one of Dr. Cliff’s videos he mentioned counterfeit OTC offerings. That never occurred to me. I don’t have much of a criminal mind, I guess.