Oticon OPN1 are the same than any model of Bernafon

Hearing Aids
#26

Software determines hardwarew? Software can run on different hardware, hardware dertermines perfromance. Why would the Software be the same, just because of MFi?

what does premium grade have to do with anything? It might the premium version of Bernafone, and that might be worse than OPN by design…

Based on what you’re saying I fail to understand why you would think that Costco sells OPNs under the bernafone name.

Volusiano already tried to explain that the sonic enchant are too a derivate of the OPN, but not the same as the OPN.

#27

Why is it the Velox platform? Why wouldn’t there be changes in the hardware and only software? What makes you say that, you sound kinda ignorant to me.

#28

It is “worse” than OPN by design. That isn’t the argument. They are completely different in performance/software. Octicon doesn’t want them to be the same. It would defeat their marketing.

But, I doubt the hardware is in any way different. It makes no economic sense to make multiple hardware runs at greater cost. So, it is all done in software. I never said otherwise.

You said it wasn’t the same hardware and that is either wrong or unproven.

#29

The bottom line is that it’s irrelevant if the Bernafon has the same Velox platform that is used by the OPN or not (although I still maintain that it does not).

The bottom line is that the Bernafon does not have or use the OpenSound Navigator DSP technology the OPN uses. Whether or not this is software based or hardware based is irrelevant. The Bernafon will VERY UNLIKELY sound like the OPN. This is assuming that the Bernafon Zerena uses similar technologies that the Sonic Enchant uses. And I do have first hand experience that the Sonic Enchant sounds nothing like the OPN.

#30

you started an argument over my statement : " there might be cut downs, best try both"

which proves the fact that you’re being an silly old man.

You claim all brands use the same Hardware and only change the software, an that is either wrong or unproven.

#31

The only thing I disputed was your saying it wasn’t on the Velox (hadware) platform. I never said the software was the same. In fact, everyone acknowledges the software is different.

And, I wasn’t the person that said, that difference don’t appear whether or not you said try both. I said it used the same hardware. Unless someone can prove otherwise, that remains the point I was making.

1 Like
#32

how can you make that point? and why are you allowed to make such a point and claim everybody is wrong unless they have proof?

Where’s your proof that the hardware is the same?

It’s kinda a point to make based on specualtion and hard to debate, especially since you don’t give the Bernafone name or some datasheets.

1 Like
#33

Where is the proof it isn’t? It came out with MFi capability and that change indicates a new platform.

Hell, it isn’t a big deal until you try to make it one.

1 Like
#34

tell that yourself, too. Then I’m happy.

#35

This “ignorant old man” is happy that you are happy. It makes my ignorant day. Now go turn another mole hill into a mountain.

2 Likes
#36

you having a hard time in your life?

#37

I’ll leave it to others to decide. I haven’t personalize the discussion. You are the expert at that.

You can have the last word.

2 Likes
#38

You seem to be the one that is angry and throwing insults at people.

1 Like
#39

why shouldn’t I, giving the context in this thread and from where it started. You wanna debate a guy with those quirky viewpoints? that’s the kind of thing everybody would say living in his own bubble in lala land.

#40

I disagree entirely with this statement. The OpenSound Navigator (OSN), the OPN core DSP software algorithm, has everything to do with the DSP IC Oticon uses in the Velox platform. Without this DSP IC hardware that was built from scratch specifically to support the OSN signal processing software, the OPN wouldn’t have been able to implement its open sound paradigm.

All you have to do is Google the Oticon Velox Platform whitepaper and read it yourself to understand how critical this hardware is in order to support what Oticon wants to implement in the OPN OSN software.

1 Like
#41

Against my better judgement, I’m joining the fray. I’d agree with Volusiano that the Velox platform was designed for the Oticon Opn. If I understand correctly, the same hardware is used for all 3 versions of Opn: 1,2, and 3. The only difference is software.

Considering we’re talking the same overall company producing Oticon, Sonic and Bernafon and that the hearing aids look very similar, I don’t find it much of a stretch to believe that they use the same chip as the Velox and use significantly different programming. They are programmable computer chips. Just because it was designed for the Opn doesn’t mean it can’t be programmed very differently.

What are the other options? They design another chip for the Bernafon and Sonic? Seems unlikely for such a relatively small company. I’m guessing the cost of making the chips is actually quite low. Other options: they use one of their older chips (Inium Sense perhaps) and combine it with their bluetooth chip? Perhaps they buy some generic hearing aid chip?

I have no idea, but gut says that using Velox platform for all likely makes economic sense, but I’m just speculating, as I believe everybody else is.

1 Like
#42

The William Demant holding group is hardly a relatively small company. It is a holding group owning as many as 3 independent hearing aid companies, along with god knows how many other companies they own. That’s why it’s called a holding group.

Of course everybody is guessing because they don’t work for the William Demant holding group to know the real story. But as an electrical engineer myself by trade and having been in the semiconductor and electronic design automation industry for the last 32 years, I find it very believable that the William Demant holding group would foster innovation and allow these 3 sister companies to develop their own hardware platforms to see which one would come up with the best innovative product in that industry. Otherwise, why would they keep 3 separate and independent sister companies like this if all they do is producing their models using the same platform.

The Velox platform cost over $150M in NRE (non-recurring engineering) cost. I find it very hard to believe that if they had chosen to share that platform with the Sonic Enchant and the Bernafon Zerena, that they wouldn’t have crowed about it up and down the marketing lanes to advertise that fact. Instead, the Sonic Enchant marketing reveal a distinct name for their own platform, the SoundDNA, and the Bernafon Zerena advertises that they built their new HA model based on their own “heritage” Channel platform. Note that Bernafon uses the word “heritage” here, implying that this Channel platform has been around for previous iterations of their previous models, and they continue to build the Zerena on top of it.

IC design platforms are unlike Windows OS or MacOS platforms, if you want to use that analogy and assume that the processing softwares are just like software apps on the computer. It’s really not the same bottom up approach like you think, at least for the Velox platform.

If you read the Velox white paper and the OpenSound Navigator white paper and the various OPN presentations Oticon had put on the audiologyonline.com website, you’ll come to an understanding that they didn’t just build an afterthought-generic platform to support any kind of software on it like you think. They started from the top down, defined what they thought was an ideal paradigm (ends up being the “open” paradigm), then defined how they could support that paradigm via a specific DSP strategy, then defined what kind of hardware platform they’d need to build with the kind of processing power sufficient to support that DSP strategy. So it’s entirely top down and that’s why the Velox platform was build entirely from scratch in order to support the specific DSP strategy they needed to support the open paradigm that they wanted.

1 Like
#43

I don’t disagree with what you are saying. It just that past history shows the lesser brands used the same hardware. Taking the hardware platform as the total standard is wrong. But, with different software, any hardware can be made to preform to the design rather than the hardware. That is especially true with aids where multiple product from the brand use different programming to determine level/features.

I’m sure you recall when Apple went to the 86 processor family the hardware could be duplicated and that brought about cheaper Apple clones. They could run either Windows or Mac O/S. Same goes for Octicon, Bernafon, Sonic, etc.

Its a minor point but it is there. I imagine a small write once prom is the only difference hardware wise.

1 Like
#44

I didn´t make myself clear, sorry.
Of course, an ambitious program like Oticon Open Sound will only run on capable hardware. So Open Sound needs the velox chip.
But what I was trying to say: You can run something completely different on that chip. Thats what Bernafon does.
By the way, in germany, Bernafon Aids are almost as expensive as oticon aids. Bernafon is cheap in the US only because of costco. Bernafon isn´t a “low budget brand” in Europe.

I have this quote in german from a hearing aid professional:
http://www.hoergeraetetest.de/2015/04/08/bernafon-juna-ein-grosser-schritt-nach-vorn/#comment-2172
You can view it with google translate.

Regards,

Musician_72

1 Like
#45

@Musician_72 A while back I looked at Bernafon’s listing of US clinics and there were only a few. Canada does have more. I think that’s why Costco has that brand. With there being so many more in Europe, it’s become a premium price product. Perception seems to be everything concerning aids.

2 Likes