I’ve heard that Oticon is very good for high frequency loss (mainly from Dr. Cliff I think) but I don’t know why. Anybody know why Oticon would be better than any other hearing aid? My best guess is better feedback control so they can provide more gain to high frequencies with a more open fit without generating feedback.
2 Likes
Well I’d take anything he states with a pinch of salt, but feedback control is quite substantial part of a HAs nowadays with the dynamic range pushing the limits, but my local University audiologist says that it’s Signia and Resound, probably someone else would say it’s Widex, but certainly Oticon do it differently, should be interesting to see what others think about why.
2 Likes
I don’t recall accurately, but months ago I reviewed datasheets of Oticon and Phonak receivers, and it seemed at a glance that Oticon is slightly better in higher frequencies?
2 Likes
Great find here, @flashb1024 ! It’s highly likely that this is one of the benefits of abandoning the conventional (generic) receiver and adapting a newly proprietary self-calibrating receiver. There might have been new improvements in this new receiver to become more sensitive at the high end of the frequency spectrum to deliver more highs than before. But even if the new physical receiver is not that much better than the old receiver type, just the electronics alone added to it to allow self calibration now, to dynamically inform and let the electronics in the hearing aids know exactly how to drive it to achieve not only more accurate results, but maybe also more powerful results on the high frequency ends, might be the trick to get the amplification where they want to be.
It might be better electronics in the MoreSound Amplifier 3.0, but I think if they can use better electronics now on the Intent, then why couldn’t they use better electronics before as well? That’s why I think the trick is probably more about this new idea of adding self calibration circuitry into the receiver that makes it better by being able to be more amplified on the high end.
However, this begs the question of “since when” have Oticon hearing aids been touted to have better high frequency performance than the other brands’? Only since the Intent, or since even before the Intent? If the later, then it’s not in the physical receiver because all brands use the same generic type receiver more or less. So then what is it about the Oticon sound that appears to give the perception of better high frequency sounds? It’s most likely in the electronics, and the most pertinent functionality that might give better amplification is in the MoreSound Amplifier block. Oticon has gone through 3 iterations of MSI so far. The More has MSI 1, the Real has MSI 2, and the Intent has MSI 3. The significance going from the MSI 1 to 2 is really just the addition of the Sudden Sound Stabilizer, which is included as part of the MSI 2 in the Real. The MSI 3 seems to have claimed to have a higher dynamic range than MSI 2 in the Real. That might be attributed to the improved self-calibrating receiver design that allows more accurate amplification that can also now acquire a little bit more gain along with it as well.
So if people are already starting to notice better high frequency response since the More, which I don’t really know whether that’s true or not, but if it is, then let’s try to see what it is about the MSI 1 that might do this. Right off the bat, Oticon claims a 6-fold increase in sound resolution going from the Velox S platform of the OPN S to the Polaris platform of the More. The hallmarks of the MSI 1 as outlined by Oticon is in its “rapid” and “high resolution” amplification system. The strategy used is to have the MSA 1 process sounds through 2 different paths, a 4-channel path and a 24-channel path. They look at the incoming signal and if it’s a fast modulating signal in both amplitude and frequency (like voices), then the signal is prioritized to be processed in the 4-channel path. If it’s a slow modulating signal in both amplitude and frequency (like noise), then the signal is prioritized to be processed in the 24-channel path. This setup allows them to be able to do a better job of amplifying the sound regardless of whether it’s speech or noise because they route the sound to the most appropriate path to be processed effectively. I guess less channels allows them to apply more processing power to each channel, which is more apt to handle more dynamically modulating sounds (like speech) with more power per channel to do its job. On the other hand, more stationary sounds (like noise) wouldn’t require as much processing power, so they can break up the sound into smaller chunks of 24 channels and still do an effective job of processing them with less power, but with more channels to have more fine tuning control of them as needed.
Anyway, how does this strategy give you better amplification in the high frequencies? I don’t really know, and it’s not obvious to me. So maybe the perception of better high frequency amplification really recent came around with the introduction of the Intent, where, again, it’s most likely thanks to its new self-calibrating receiver design allowing the amplification to be more accurate, which in turn might allow Oticon to be able to be bolder in doing amplification and thus extending the dynamic range of the amplification, especially on the high frequency ends as shown in the chart from @flashb1024 's post above.
2 Likes
That is an impressively flat response. I still wonder about the challenges of supplying that much volume without generating feedback.
1 Like
You might have stumbled on another possible explanation here, @MDB. Oticon has come up with a one-of-a-kind and most likely patented feedback prevention technology called the Optimizer since the OPN S until now still used as the main feedback management tool with the Intent. It was the single big improvement that triggered the release of the OPN S over the OPN. It’s supposed to allow several more dB of SNR that wouldn’t have been possible before without causing feedback. It’s very possible that since having this technology, Oticon has been able to increase the dynamic range of its amplification and boost the high frequency amplification further than other brands’ without worrying about feedback, hence carve out a reputation for themselves, albeit not in the area of superior feedback prevention, but inadvertently in the area of good high frequency response/amplification.
A quick synopsis of this technology is in the screenshot below. Basically Oticon inserts “breaks” (Spectral Temporal Modulations or STMs) when the aids detect the potential for feedback energy developing, and the breaks help stave off the feedback before it happens. These breaks sometimes can be too aggressive and can be intrusive and audible to users. So later on, Oticon had to update through firmware to give an option to make the breaks less aggressive (hence less audible) to be noticed by the users.
3 Likes
Back in April we had a discussion about this, where I pointed out this exact detail.
I believe the Mores went up to 10k, but were still limited to 125Hz at the low end. Oticon Intent user review - #141 by flashb1024
Improved receivers + added effectiveness of MSI 3.0 = Better frequency response.
Yes, the cause of “Warble” or TTTF (Talking Through The Fan).
1 Like
Does this thread imply that Oticons are better at reproducing treble sounds or that they can reach higher frequencies than other HAs?
1 Like
Signia can go 12k, but whatever one thinks is best really, these kind of debates are like which is a better vehicle or smartphone.
2 Likes
I don’t know of very many with hearing loss that can hear above 8 to 10K hz anyway.
2 Likes
Dr. Cliff has suggested that the Oticon Intent is good for those with high frequency loss. Looking at their datasheet for their receiver it is an impressively flat response compared to many receivers. However, if you’re talking about your loss, I’d think you’d be better off with a Super Power or Ultra Power BTE, and perhaps consider a cochlear implant eval.
1 Like
My VA audiologist lowered my high frequencies a little and increased my low frequencies some so I could hear speech better without i sounding tinny. I has also made music sound better to me. Phone calls sound better as does streaming audiobooks.
I am skeptical about how sophisticated the self-calibrating receivers are.
I have Philips 9050s, they also have a new generation of receivers, which they call “miniFit Detect speaker system”. These look the same as my Oticon Opn receivers, except there are four contacts on the end of the wire instead of two. What these do is tell the hearing aid which power receiver they are. So they are “self-calibrating” in the sense that they tell the hearing aid body, and the fitting software, what version they are, instead of depending on the audiologist/fitter to make the right selection in the software.
I have seen nothing else in the Philips reference info or software that implies more advanced self-calibraiton than this. Perhaps there is more in the Oticon branded devices.
I’m curious on the source of information you found that says that the Philips 9050 receiver’s self calibration is only good for correct identification of the receiver type to the hearing aid and does nothing else. It’s not a challenge or anything like that, just genuine curiosity because I tried to google up more details on the Oticon self-calibrating speakers and all I got is shown in the screenshot below:
It’s almost as if what you suspect about the 9059 self calibration being just self identification is true, except for the tidbit that you see about the accuracy within 1 dB, and providing “up to” (a loaded catch phrase here) 57% more precise gain pampared to previous (receivers). So Oticon is implying that their new receiver is better than their old receiver, but whether or not this improvement is actually due to the self calibrating, or simply due to a better receiver design, it’s not clear. Oticon seems to just “slap” those 2 things together without really say that the self-calibration is the cause of the better receiver improvement.
Actually both the audiologists I consulted in the past said that I wouldn’t benefit much from anything stronger than a RIC + M receiver, as my loss concentrates on high frequencies.
1 Like
Interesting! I’m no expert but I thought the middle frequencies might benefit from more gain than what a M receiver could supply. Do you know if you are using frequency lowering and if so what aids are you using? I’m guessing your word recognition scores are pretty low. Has a cochlear implant eval ever been suggested?
Not yet (in terms of cochlear implants).
I’m using Lumity aids where I set maximum sound recover (i do DIY) but for the middle frequencies they should do.
Yeah my word recognition is bad in loud noise but acceptable in quiet.
Anyway, do you think that other kind of aids could give me better results with middle frequencies?
I think that, before trying BTE aids, I’m supposed to switch to P receivers…
Caveat: I’m no expert so take my words with multiple grains of salt. I think a Super Power or Ultra Power BTE might make middle frequencies more audible than what a RIC could do. Whether you could use the additional gain or not I have no idea. @Neville , am I off the wall thinking that a BTE might be better for this loss and a cochlear implant eval could be appropriate? I’m a fan of frequency lowering but this loss seems a bit much to me.
1 Like
Phonak Paradise vs. Oticon Opn
