@x475aws: I fail to grasp how one is supposed to have a constructive discussion based on half-truths, taken out of context.
@x475aws: Context is important. If you’re going to start nit-picking @Volusiano 's contributory posts, at least get what he actually said right.
That page’s target audience doesn’t have to understand it because they’re not part of the discussion on this thread here so how they understand it is irrelevant to THIS discussion in THIS context. But you’re a participant in THIS discussion, and I thought it was clear that everyone has been talking about the sound SIGNATURE, and NOT counting in how the technologies like noise management and other automatic features affect the sound QUALITY.
You can see the 2 quotes below where both MDB and Neville discounted the effect of the technologies on the sound quality as NOT being part of what is being discussed, the sound SIGNATURE. Then even in my quote, I also discounted the technologies as well in the third quote below.
I’ve already clarified enough that we’re talking about 2 different things, the sound signature and the sound quality. But if somebody continues to want to choose to be willfully ignorant of this distinction for an ulterior motive, other than participating in an intelligent discussion, then that’s OK, too. The distinction still matters to plenty of those who truly want to understand.
1 Like
Exactly, MrV - Exactly!
Of course they are, but what difference does it make. They are trying to sell hearing aids. It is called marketing and is totally expected behavior. What the consumer with the help of their audiologist has to do, is to disregard the hype and see how the aids can be made to work for the particular need. I find the Oticon More 1s work quite well when tweaked appropriately. Music sounds rich and full, I can edit videos and hear all the audio nuances including the sweetening that I do. This wasn’t the case always with the Alta pros that I came from. I am a satisfied customer at the moment.
I do wish that they would gear their training and software/hardware for the consumer to make the aids more user adjustable for those consumers who want to make changes without having to go back to the audiologist and spend their time to make minor tweaks. Other than that, I can go on with my life and hear better, which is the point of spending all this money and time on this technology.
Yep, it’s marketing, and it’s to be expected. I cited it merely as a counterexample to another member’s improbable assertion that HA manufacturers don’t tout their sound.
1 Like
@x475aws X475aws: There you go again: spreading disinformation just to cause dissent in the Forum!
@Volusiano didn’t say that HA manufacturers didn’t tout their sound … he said nobody says their sound is the best sound. I’ve already clarified this in Post #59.
There’s a difference between saying “My mom makes good apple pie” and saying “My mom makes the best apple pie of anyone”.
None of the Big 6 has said anything akin to the latter. They’ve just all said they make good apple pie.
My own experience…
It’s the setup that matters the most.
It takes time. But I’m impatient, and that doesn’t help.
The hard part is finding an audiologist that is skilled and experienced.
1 Like
OK since the OP is More vs Paradise I’ll repeat my post from another thread here. FWIW
Here is my initial impression of the Phonak P90-R/T subsequent to my trial with the Oticon More 1. I got them yesterday (12/16) at 10AM so we’re only talking about a 10 hour wear time. They were set a 100% of the target as were the Oticon.
-
Music is clearly superior with the Phonak. Not quite as nice as the Evoke but still pretty good.
-
I was at a meeting in a home with a lively discussion that followed—men in one room and women in another with a large opening between the two immediately to my right. There were four men, and I was seated facing the three others. One was directly across from me with one on either side of that person facing inwardly, so I was looking at the sides of those two faces. They were approximately 6 or 7 feet away. There was plenty of noise from the girls, lots of elevated volume with loud talking and laughing hitting me from the right side. Not restaurant or party loud but enough that I struggled even when the person directly across and facing me was talking. I played with app and adjusted every setting available and did improve things somewhat, but I was never close to comfortable and missed most of the conversation from that position. I had to change seats. I was in that same situation a couple of times with the Oticon and had a much, MUCH easier time with things missing only a few words here and there. Usually because of a poorly accented fricative or trail off at the end of a sentence. Nothing that kept me from understanding things. With the Phonak most of the noise coming from the other room was just that—noise. But with the Oticon, if I paid attention ,I could actually pick up some of the conversation. Quite impressive.
-
In regular situations the difference between the open paradigm and the traditional is also apparent. The Phonak are most definitely quieter. There is less going on around me. In spite of it speech is not quite as crisp and distinct as with the Oticon.
Again this was only 10 hours on initial settings with no adjustments so things could improve but they have quite a ways to go to equal the More 1. I have an appointment this coming Wednesday and I’ll see what magic the audiologist can work. But if he can’t get the Paradise close to the More 1, I see no reason to keep it and add a $2K Roger On to cover complex situations that comprise less than 10% of life.
One quick update. The Phonak app is sophisticated enough that I can, in the quiet of my home, make it sound, at least make speech sound, just like the Oticon. Kudos to @Neville because I believe that is all he was saying. But that all changes out in the noisy world (which I believe Neville also granted) and save for some improvement from brightening up the sound of the Paradise everything I wrote above remains true.
100% of what target? Were they verified against NL2 at different levels, or set to 100% manufacturer fit in the software?
Software recommendations. Output REM confirmed.
A question arises about whether this is the source of the recommendation is from the software of the company that makes the HA or if it is a standard like NAL-NL2. Companies often give “softer” or weaker prescriptions for initial fitting than the NAL-NL2 prescription. If you try two brands, and the HCP used the companies’ targeting philosophies in setting them up, this leaves you apples and oranges comparisons.
That is part of Neville’s question. REM only shows if your fitting is against what was intended. It could be to the brand’s prescription, the NAL-NL2, or adjustments that have been made as you go along for your situations. REM shows how well it matches the fitting, but it doesn’t assure you the “standard” fitting was prescribed.
I may be all wet here, but that’s how I read the situation.
WH
1 Like
So, ADP vs VAC+? Or NL2 vs NL2?
It is the company software but it’s all irrelevant to me as it’s just a starting point. I know what I want to hear and I’ll have them adjusted to get to my preferences as close as is possible before I’m done. I know what REM does.
1 Like
With the Oticon it was the Oticon software. I assumed the Phonak was theirs.
Hm, I don’t know then. Phonak’s “NL2” compression is higher than Oticon’s “NL2” and could account for the people in the next room being louder, but off the top of my head I don’t know if that’s true of ADP/VAC. They were likely both verified against NL2 targets, but compression may not have been adjusted.
I don’t think I’d say the people in the next room were louder. Same people each time. It’s that speech with the Phonak was considerably less distinct. It just blended in with the noise from the other room while the Oticon pulled it out. It was a big difference. Again I did brighten up the sound on the Oticon with the first adjustment which made quite a difference and I’ll have that done to the Phonak this coming Wednesday. It’s early yet.
Your source for this, as I’m not so sure it’s “weaker” or “softer” as such,or do mean they usually use the adaption management settings as well in the initial fitting.
REM is a no go for the manufacturers rationale/formula tho.
Not sure what you mean. This video pretty clearly shows being able to do REM against any number of fitting rationales.
WH