Hopefully a traditional battery version of Intent will be released later. If it is (and that’s a big if), I would expect only one battery size.
On the bright side, my audiologist tells me that the Li-Ion rechargeable battery in Intent, like its predecessors, can be replaced in the office.
Oticon helps prepare the sound scene and turn it into a presentable state (more audible state) so that one can use their brain hearing to sort out all the sounds. The brain is not damaged, it’s the hearing that is damaged. The key word in brain hearing is brain, not hearing. Hard of hearing people still have a brain. If audible information is presented to the brain with the help of Oticon aids, then people can still use their functional brain to sort out the more audible sounds now.
So what I’m saying here is nothing inconsistent with the value that Oticon aids bring. Oticon doesn’t help you do any of the brain hearing that you have to do yourself. But if Oticon doesn’t help present an acceptable sound scene that alleviates the bad effect of your damaged hearing through all its processing power and technology, then you cannot use your brain hearing to process a bad sound scene caused by bad hearing.
A very simple analogy here: a picture is out of focus because your eyes are bad. The glasses (Oticon aids) help bring all the items of the picture back into focus. But if the person does not want to use their brain vision to hunt and to find the item they want to seek out among the hundreds of items in the picture, they probably are not going to find it. A person who’s more willing to use their brain vision to sort out what they want to look for will find it.
I know that you always seem to dislike it when I bring up the brain hearing part. But remember that I didn’t originate it, Oticon did when they introduced the open paradigm to people. Oticon knows that people have been used to just hearing speech and almost nothing else in noisy places, so there’ll be resistance to hearing more sounds than just speech in noise. So Oticon is reminding people that they still have their functional brain to do the sorting. If Oticon aids can use their technologies to put the sound scene back into a presentable state that overcome the damaged hearing, then the brain can be used to sort it out like before.
Of course because the brain is used to having to deal with the damaged hearing for a long time, it’ll take the brain some time now to become readapted to hearing more sounds and learn to sort it out again. But of course it would not be possible if Oticon doesn’t help to put the sound scene back together in a more audible way for the brain to sort it out in the first place.
They don’t produce their own chips, none of them do, and ‘made for hearing aids’ means nothing. It’s been done for decades.
Just think about how your head movement corresponds to what you’re doing, it’s very unpredictable. Most of them push, some kind of health/step tracking, to just have any use of that embedded gyro.
This is pure marketing babble of the highest order.
Thank you, @firenzel for calling me out here. I do stand corrected. I did not peruse through the whole whitepaper for long enough. I just tried to look for AI-NR 2.0 or a big chunk of text devoted to the improvement of their AI-NR but didn’t see anything obvious and missed that part that you showed. But what you showed definitely says that they have improved it enough to introduce a Very High setting of 12 dB for the noise reduction.
Oof. “Brain damaged” is such a loaded term and I see the straw man you are weirdly building about me saying that people with hearing loss have no brain (which I clearly did not say). But the fact is, damage to the ear results in changes to the auditory system (in the brain). Your hearing isn’t just in your ear, and the hearing in your ear and the hearing in your brain are not terribly separate. It’s all part of the same system and your brain cannot just magically overcome the changes to the auditory system as long as things are audible, otherwise we never would have needed to progress beyond analogue aids, or at least early WDRC, which were certainly capable of making things audible.
I dislike your interpretation of the ‘brain hearing’ part because it tends to imply that either Oticon hearing aids are less processed, rely more on your brain, or somehow result in improvements in your brain in a way that other hearing aids do not. None of that is true and I don’t want other naive users to be misled. Oticon is interested in understanding how the brain works to process sound so that they can work to create hearing aids that support that (“BrainHearing TM”). It’s a good and rational strategy and one that other manufacturers largely share, Oticon just happens to market it, which is fine. It’s also a way that they marketted their opn strategy, which was really good and clever and groundbreaking because it provided a different approach to boosting target speech than regular directional mics. But it doesn’t require you to use your brain more, and if anything Oticon is interested in reducing listening effort.
So, that’s my trigger. It’s the implication that floats in the air that Oticon hearing aids do something special to your brain or require something special from your brain compared to other hearing aids. This is not the case.
A stripped down music program does tend to turn off a lot of features. It does not, however, do anything special to exercise your brain compared to a hearing aid with more features, other than that hearing speech in some situations will be harder, which will be more fatiguing.
Let me add this maybe necessary edit for new audience members unfamiliar with old dynamics: I like Oticon devices. I also like Volusiano.
And I dislike your interpretation of my take on the brain hearing because your interpretation is TOTALLY wrong. I challenge you to find ONE (1) post of mine that says Oticon hearing aids are less processed. Please point it out to me and I’ll stand corrected. But if you say “it tends to imply”, then that’s YOUR interpretation that Oticon hearing aids are less processed, not mine. After all, you just said it here. I never said it.
My contention has always been that Oticon delivers more sounds to the users due to its open paradigm. That’s not a debate, it’s a fact. And to users who are more used to just having a lot more noise aggressively blocked out due to beam forming in noisy places, a lot more sounds now can be really overwhelming. I always contend that to deal with a lot more sound information now, the user should their brain hearing to sort it out. How is more sounds coming from Oticon aids turned into “less processed aids” ??? Again, I challenge you to find a direct quote from me that includes the words “less processed”.
As to whether Oticon aids require something special from your brain compared to other hearing aids, yeah, sure, they do require something more. It’s not anything special, it’s just plain old more ATTENTION. Now I don’t just hear mostly just speech in a noisy place thanks to frontal beam forming. Now I have to deal with A LOT MORE sounds around me, so my brain has to pay more attention and deal with all these new sounds that now become available to me.
As to Oticon aids doing something special to your brain, you said it, not me. Again please find a quote where I said Oticon aids does something special to your brain. But if you say that “it implies”, then it’s YOUR interpretation, not mine.
If you were never implying anything at all like I said, in earlier posts or in literally the post you just made, then I retract everything I complained about. 
I shall leave you with this quick and bad little PC art. “More ™ sound”
Yes, I have heard of this parallel comparison before → the Oticon open paradigm can be achieved in other hearing aids by just using the other aids’ stripped down music program. And I agree that this is a fallacy. The only similarity between them is that the omnidirectionality of the music program picks up all the surrounding sounds and not leave out anything, similar to how the Oticon paradigm is.
But that similarity ends there.
Oticon aids does do beam forming (MVDR type) to attenuate noise, that’s one dissimilarity.
Oticon aids process and clean up diffused noise in speeches, while a normal music program doesn’t do this. Normally, noise reduction is turned off in the music program.
Oticon aids rebalances the sound scene so that the sound level of the various sound components in the sound scene are more balanced, meaning that if one sound tend to overwhelm other sounds due to higher volume, it may be turned down a little. And same with weaker sounds that may be overwhelmed by louder sounds, they may be turned up a little bit louder. The goal is to have a more balanced sound scene where most sound components are audible to the user without fighting each other for presence. This rebalancing is also determined via selection by the user, using their choice of what easy environments are, and what difficult environments are for them. Most likely, even the MyMusic program would not try to do all this rebalancing. That is because the preservation of the authenticity of the music composition should be the goal, so however the music comes across, it should be left alone and not tinkered with, except for whatever equalization or colorization they might do, like using the Harman target curve like how it’s done on headphones to give it a more tonally balanced sound.
And like @Neville said, a stripped down music program tends to turn off or minimize a lot of features, while the Oticon general program leaves a lot of features on, like automatic directionality, noise reduction, compression, feedback management, sudden sound management, etc.
If some users mistakenly conclude that the Oticon aids is nothing more than a stripped-down music program, then it’s a lack of knowledge on their part in understanding the intricacies of the Oticon aids that make it more than just a glorfied music program. It has nothing to do with the brain hearing debate, either.
And for the records, I have tremendous respect for @Neville. I know he dislikes me talking about the brain hearing because he starts thinking that I’m implying things that give the readers the wrong impression. I say that we should all give the readers the benefit of the doubt and let them ask questions if they’re unclear about what we’re trying to say. So far I don’t remember too many people criticizing me for talking about the brain hearing. But I can understand how more knowledgeable people like our HCPs on this forum here can read a lot more into what I try to say and interpret my intention wrongly.
You aren’t just giving the wrong impression. You’re wasting people’s time. For years you’ve been advising that a fair evaluation of Oticon aids requires an effort to develop one’s “brain hearing”. Who knows how many people, who should have rejected Oticon right away when it didn’t work for them, instead spent their (and their HCP’s) time trying to develop their “brain hearing” instead? Not to mention the poor user who never managed to develop their “brain hearing” but blew past the end of their trial period and had to keep the Oticons anyway.
P.S. For those who don’t know, I have Oticon Real 1’s and am happy with them, because they happen to work very well for me. “Brain hearing” never entered into it.
I am excited that the Oticon Intents as well as the Philips 9050s will have LE Audio and Auracast. Maybe I can get working hands free & streaming on my Samsung Galaxy S23s. I want to try them.
How did you know? …
They posted about it.
Misunderstanding. I meant me. I didn’t know you had a real life example in mind.
I’m sure you would love to harp on anything negative about me so that you’d have something to say about it. If you say that I waste your time, I’ll reply that if you don’t agree with what I say, you can just tune me off and not read my posts. Why would you allow me to waste your time? As for saying that I waste people’s time, I respectfully say that please let people decide that on their own, you don’t need to decide it for them. They’re all adults here and they can determine who is wasting their time and who is not, and decide what to do about it. Furthermore, I’m just sharing my personal opinions here. I’m not here to try to convince anybody anything (like I said to you before already). So people who don’t like what I say (like yourself) can just ignore me. Don’t bother to reply and ask any questions because that would be wasting your time. But if you’re genuinely interested and want to engage and ask questions or debate in a civil way, I would be glad to respond.
If there are people who decide to evaluate the Oticon and fail to return them on time, they should also be adult enough to own that decision and not put the blame on anybody else but themselves. I have NEVER had anybody on this forum asking me personally, either in public posts or via PMs, whether I would recommend them to hold on to their Oticon trial past their evaluation period because I think their brain hearing hasn’t developed enough yet. I challenge you to point out to me who had said that and put the blame on me for recommending them to blow past their trial period in vain. You also don’t need to blame me on their behalf. They can speak for themselves if they want to blame me.
And lastly, I don’t know about you, but I need to use my brain to process what I hear. So brain hearing is always motoring on in my brain all day long, it’s not an option for me. With any hearing aid brand/model. But yes, Oticon aids initially (not anymore) made my brain hearing work harder in the beginning until I adapted, due to the overwhelmingly more sounds thrown at me. If your brain hearing never had to work harder for your Real initially, then I’m really glad for you.
Couldn’t find too much on the miniFit Detect speakers. The Philips 9050 Whitepaper says:
New miniFit Detect receivers support a wider frequency bandwidth, from <100 to 10,000 Hz, to give a fuller listening experience for entertainment and music; on top of that, they identify left or right side to make receiver replacements easier.
Edit: I see some discussion an a photo here: New Oticon Platform 2024? Intent/Encanta - #70 by firenzel
I apologize for not specifying earlier that I was referring to my P1 and music program for my Oticon More . Nevertheless, I hear @Neville’s point again whenever I step into a noisy environment with my music program; and I’ve learned a lot from this exchange. Thank you both!
Well in the anouncment it was mentionet that there will be a 13 version, the question is when will it comes (1 month, 6 months?), atm only the rechargeable version are visible on the homepage.
A 13 version would make sense because I wonder how much more battery juice something like an accelerometer would suck up.
It would also be interesting to see if the Philips 9050 (which has been confirmed to have the accelerometer technology as well) will only have a battery size 13 version eventually as well.
They are lovely, my criticism is at a high level
At the moment it’s a three-way fight between Genesis, Nexia and Intent (not yet tested of course)
rechargeable
no need for me to read on… till they get that fixed