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.
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.
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.
tell that yourself, too. Then I’m happy.
This “ignorant old man” is happy that you are happy. It makes my ignorant day. Now go turn another mole hill into a mountain.
you having a hard time in your life?
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.
You seem to be the one that is angry and throwing insults at people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@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.
Being somewhat interested in this topic. I decided to settle the matter once and for all and asked them at Costco.
Unfortunately I received a look that indicated that I might have erroneously asked them to explain the general and special theories of relativity in Klingon. So the debate may continue.
From the Bernafon product marketting:
“Directional systems administer various patterns (e.g., omni directional, fixed directional,
adaptive directional). These options work well in a particular environment or situation but
may not be flexible enough for dynamic, real-world environments that users encounter.
Additionally, noise reduction systems are good at reducing noise but may inadvertently
reduce speech as well. In the past, these two systems worked separately, but Bernafon
now introduces DNM™ where the two systems join forces to create an optimized
listening environment. The directionality system is continuously adjusting its directional
patterns to reduce noise; therefore, noise reduction is only added when necessary.
Noise reduction is not always needed if the directional system has sufficiently improved
the SNR, meaning that with DNM™, less speech will be affected by unnecessary noise
reduction”
So, definitely not the Opn strategy.
I agree with the above that Opn needs a new generation fast processor to run, but I bet the strategy could be implemented on, say, the newest Phonak chip. The clever bits are what the Oticon software is doing. Bernafon and Oticon share accessories and probably hardware, but the software is very different.
There’s a lot of parallel in this bit of marketing for the Zerena compared to what the Sonic Enchant offers as far as I can tell, based on everything I’ve learned about the Enchant from my past review of it. I’m fairly convinced that the Zerena and the Enchant share the same technology (even software wise).
Like everyone here, I don’t know if the three companies are sharing hardware with their latest products, but I suspect they are. All points to this- including the timing of the release and the physical appearance.
I do understand the Opn hardware is based on a very very fast chip that is needed to support demanding Oticon Opn software. There is nothing that would prevent this very very fast chip from supporting less demanding software.
Once that chip is designed the costs to all three companies could be kept down by sharing that hardware. To design new hardware to be less capable, or to take the existing chip and cripple it would add cost and serve no purpose to any of the three companies.
For Dement, Oticon is priced as their “Lexus” line, while Sonic and Bernafon are their “Toyota’s”. There is no reason Dement would want to compromise Oticon by allowing any attention be brought to any shared hardware.
While this line of thinking is plausible, I’m of the opinion that Bernafon and Sonic ALREADY developed their own hardware platforms and didn’t need the new ground breaking Velox platform in order to implement their software on.
So the rationale above saying that it’s more economical to use the same platform only holds true IF Bernafon and Sonic don’t have their own existing hardware platform yet. But I’m of the opinion that they already have their own existing hardware platform for use with their software already, and these existing hardware platform is already adequate to serve their software need for their new technologies, so there’s no need to port their software technologies on the new Velox platform developed for the OPN.
Certainly they can port it over to the Velox if they want to, but why would they do that at additional development costs if they can simply build their new HA model line on the existing hardware platform that they already have.
And the reason I suspect that they’re reusing their existing hardware platform is because I read from the Zerena marketing material that they mentioned their “legacy” Channel Free platform. Their use of the word legacy seems to imply to me that it’s based on a platform that they already had before. Not a brand new one.
And again, if either Bernafon and/or Sonic indeed use the Velox platform, there should be no reason they should avoid crowing about it on their marketing material. But they did not.