My personal take is that because Philips licenses from William Demant and Oticon is a daughter company of William Demant, they share many features, including the hardware accessories infrastructure (like charger, batteries, TV box, BT streamer, etc).
I downloaded the HearSuite 2 programming software and have been able to verify that the frequency lowering used on the Philips is the same as the Oticon OPN/S/More, which is frequency transposition and frequency mapping.
In reading the Philips 9030 whitepaper, it also looks like it uses the same feedback prevention technology that was introduced in the OPN S and carried over to the More (the OpenSound and MoreSound Optimizer).
So yes, you can say that the Philips and the Oticon OPN/S/More share many similarities. But I believe the core technologies between them are not the same. The More uses DNN as its core AI technology in its MoreSound Intelligence, the OPN S does not have AI and its core technology is the OpenSound Navigator, the Philips 9030 uses the AI-Noise Reduction.
The Philips AI is similar to the More AI in the sense that it uses DNN training by feeding a lot of speech-in-noise sound samples to train the system to learn how to remove the noise. Then it compares the results against the same speech with no noise used as reference data. If the difference is large, the AI-NR is tweaked to minimize this difference, then another speech-in-noise sound sample is introduced through the AI-NR system again, repeating the process, until the AI-NR is tweaked pretty good enough at reducing the noise accurately on its own. So in a sense, it does use DNN to train the AI-NR to remove noise from speech. The whitepaper said that they use hundreds of thousands of sound samples to train this system. How is it different than the More DNN approach? I believe that the Philips AI-NR is much more narrowly focused to solving just the speech-in-noise problem and is trained only to remove noise from speech.
The More DNN on the other hand takes a much broader approach of sampling 12 million sound scenes (not just hundreds of thousands of speech-in-noise sound samples like the HearLink 9030), then train its DNN to break out these sound scenes to discrete sounds, then train its DNN to learn to balance all the sounds together so that it reaches the optimal balance. In doing so, it has the ability to manipulate the sounds and rebalance them discretely, and this flexibility allows more options given to the users to decide how aggressive or less aggressive the rebalancing needs to be, and how aggressive the noise suppression needs to be to prioritize speech.
In other words, the More implements the DNN on a much larger scale (12 million sound scenes) and much higher abstract level (complete sound scenes as opposed to just speech in noise sound samples), so that it can manage the whole environments to be consistent with its open paradigm. On the other hand, the Philips HearLink, while also uses DNN AI, implements it on a much smaller and more focused scale (hundreds of thousands of speech-in-noise sound samples) to attack only the speech-in-noise issue. In this process, it does not embrace the open paradigm the same way the More and the OPN S do, but it’s still very effective at solving the biggest issue most users have, speech-in-noise.
I read back on Tony’s (@Abarsanti) last post on his 5 week update, and he said that the HearLink sound quality is on par with the OPN, but his HearLink speech in noise perform better than the OPN speech in noise on directional mode. This is to be expected, although the OPN focuses on the open paradigm and helps clean up speech, your brain hearing still has to deal with all the noise around the speech, so it must learn to focus more on the speech, while the HearLink uses superior DNN AI to remove noise from the speech, and also does not embrace the open paradigm, so in its Fixed Directionality mode (block out the noise, which is different than the open paradigm’s “clean up the speech but don’t block the noise”), it’s much more aggressive to remove the noise there than the OPN’s Fixed Directionality mode, AND on top of it, the users’ brain hearing no longer has to put up with the (now blocked) noise. But the More is 2 generations after the OPN, so there’s a good chance that the More’s approach to noise suppression using the DNN can yield better results than the OPN’s older technology of noise removal from speech through rebalancing everything as opposed to the OPN’s “just clean up the speech but can’t rebalance like the More”.
So I would not say that the Philips HearLink is the same as the Oticon More because their core technologies are different although their auxiliary technologies (feedback, frequency lowering) are the same, also same accessory infrastructure.
It’d be best to acknowledge that the HearLink is a very worthy HA without everyone keep trying to compare it to the More and say that they’re really the same. They’re not the same. They maybe very similar on the peripheral, but they’re different inside the core.