I’ve been having a bit of fun with @Volusiano for the past few days, lacing some of my posts with sarcastic references to my “pore, crippled up, dumbed down, less capable More3s”.
The origin of this latest bout of hilarity was a detailed explanation that @Volusiano gave to a new More1 user who was not getting “More” from their new devices. The bottom line was that More1, with its higher noise attenuation and number of alternative adjustment scenarios, should be more capable of providing a better user fit than More2 or More3, and should easily address the users’ hearing issues.
In reality, nothing disparaging was said about More3’s fitness for purpose or ability to provide users with an excellent experience.
At one juncture, however, reference was made to the “less capable” More3, and it is this nomenclature that I wish to address.
[NOTE: @Volusiano has already made most of the points I’ll be repeating, below. I want to put them into a specific context: that of a budget-constrained user who is offered a More3 solution versus a Tier2 solution in another brand’s product line. This is the situation I found myself in last February, and is typical of what veterans are offered by the US VA or the Canadian VAC.]
Until I began lurking in the shadows of this Forum, I was unaware of the fact that - for the “offered” price set by VA/VAC for hearing devices for patients - Oticon will offer only its basic, entry level technology (Tier 3, in this case), whereas the other major brands will give the veteran access to Tier 2 hearing instruments.
So … the question I had when my audiologist informed me that - if I wanted to go the More route - I’d be getting the lowest level of the new technology was:"Is Oticon’s entry level powerful enough to help me achieve a level of speech comprehension that even my old Tier 2 devices (Unitron N Moxi Fit 800s) were unable to deliver?
My audi explained exactly what @Volusiano and the other forum gurus have said to noobs like me : "Yes, some of the feature parameters offered by More1 are reduced or absent in More3, but successfully treating my specific hearing loss may not require the breadth of fitting ranges and number of “handles” that More1 provides, compared to More3s."
I’m a fairly risk averse individual in my daily life - and I’m certainly no “early adopter” of new, unproven technology!
As a result, almost as soon as I had gotten home from the audi appointment, I called him to change my devices to Opn S3s, based on the excellent reviews those devices have received, both here and elsewhere.
That’s when I started to read Oticon’s technical papers in earnest, and when I had comprehended the degree to which the performance of Polaris surpasses Velox S (Oticon’s older chipset) I realized the error of my judgement about More3s.
I came to believe that the latitude offered by More3 features and adjustment ranges would probably be sufficient to provide me excellent performance, given my hearing loss, notwithstanding the greater adjustability of More1.
This has, in fact, turned out to be the case: I hear much, much better with More3s than I ever did when I wore a Tier 2, but poorly-fitted Unitron device.
Which is what @Volusiano said … and I am lucky that the lowest entry point to More technology has proved sufficient for my hearing deficiencies, up to this point in time.
My unsolicited advice? Don’t think that - just because More3s are less powerful than More1s - that’s not to say they aren’t powerful enough to give you an excellent result.
I’m glad, now, that I went with my audiologist’s recommendation, and didn’t reject More3s based on my misunderstanding of the “paper specs”.
The old admonition is apt here: Let not the perfect become the enemy of the good!