I’m an experienced hearing aid user, having worn Oticon Alta Pros for about 5 years, and then Costco’s Resound Fortes for another three. I was never really happy with the Resounds, but they worked OK, except in a noisy environment. I’ve now been trialing the new Philips 9030 from Costco for 3 weeks. I think they’ll work out fine, with more tweaking. Plus I like the fact that they connect easily to both my android phone (a pixel 3) and my iPad. My question is this: How do you think the Philips 9030 compares technology-wise to Oticon More 3 aids? With my insurance coverage, the More aid will only cost me an additional $600. I can trial them, of course, but my question in more about general technology between the brands – is the entry level More a superior aid to the Philips? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Don’t mean to be obnoxious, but this is pretty much an apples and oranges question. Which is superior, the apple or the orange? The two different hearing aids are largely made by the same company and the technology is similar. The Costco Phillips version is the most premium Phillips model and if you went to a country where both Phillips and Oticon were sold by independent audis, the Phillips model offered by Costco would cost more than the More 3. The More does use different approaches to noise reduction and their AI seems different, but I think it’s impossible to say which is superior. What issues are you having with the Phillips? What would you like to have better?
I didn’t think of this as an apples to oranges question, but I understand your response. I guess my main concern are handling speech in noise and the speed at which the aids adjust to different environments. The Philips, which admittedly need more tweaking, seem to be a bit slow in adapting to change. Once they do, they’re pretty good, although we haven’t yet found a good setting for balancing road noise with speech when I’m in the car.
The Phillips and Oticon take a different approach to speech and noise. With Phillips, you’re getting their most advanced noise reduction and with the More 3, you’re getting Oticon’s least strong approach. I don’t know about response to different environments. That is often something that’s adjustable.
My opinion is that you should research the open paradigm that Oticon embraces for their OPN and More lines and decide whether it’s something you think is worth trying out. I think they’re both good hearing aids, but one embraces the open paradigm and the other doesn’t. One is not necessarily better than the other, they’re just different. And some people like this paradigm and others don’t.
If your main concern is the handling of speech in noise, if your preference is that you want to hear minimal noise so you can focus on the speech then the 9030 will probably suit you better. If your preference is that you want to be aware of the surrounding noise (because sometimes they’re useful to you) but still be able to understand speech, then the More will probably suit you better. Of course, by going with the More 3, you give up some in terms of the noise reduction compared to the More 1, so you may not be able to get the best speech clarity like you want to get.
In terms of adaptation to environment transitioning, I’d venture to guess that the More probably is very good and very quick to transition and that the default program will probably be able to handle 95% of the environments that you’ll be in, although I don’t really know how it compares to the 9030 as I don’t have any experience with the 9030.
There’s a forum member here @Abarsanti who owns the OPN 1 and recently bought the 9030. You can search his thread about his experience to see what he thinks. It sounds like he’s happy with the 9030 so far. While he doesn’t have the More experience, the OPN experience is probably not too far off from the More experience anyway. But he’s an experienced DIY programmer on both his OPN and 9030 so he may be able to get to where he wants more easily than someone who would need to rely on the provider to get them to where they want.
@MDB and @Volusiano have got the answer to your question nailed down.
I currently wear Oticon More1 hearing aids, which I’ve had for three weeks. Prior to that, I wore More3s for a month.
(I paid an upcharge of $1,500.00 Cdn for the privilege of wearing Tier1 technology - my wife’s group insurance covered 80% of that, leaving me with $300 to pay out of pocket.)
I made the change to take advantage of the More1 feature called ClearDynamics, which provides a 113dB input ceiling that makes my live guitar playing sound fuller and “richer”, to use that hackneyed term.
Another More1 feature that I wanted was a 10dB noise suppression capability, versus the More3s 6dB attenuation limit. This extra noise reduction is helpful in a very noisy environment, but is imperceptible in a quiet or moderate noise situation.
Streaming music, phone calls, input from remote mics is the same for either More3s or More1s, so there’s no advantage to be had here to justify the upcharge.
If it hadn’t been for my wife’s additional coverage for my hearing devices, I wouldn’t have moved up to More1s. I decided to take advantage of the additional funds to get better rendition of LIVE MUSIC and not canned entertainment (I’ve played solo guitar professionally for over 50 years).
The More1 devices have proven their superiority in that regard, and they do provide better noise limiting in very noisy settings
So - I’d say that More1s are worth the $300 they actually cost our household budget, but they’re NOT WORTH THE $1,500. 00 (+35%) UPCHARGE over the More3s for someone with a relatively quiet lifestyle.
For the record: I could have lived with/gotten used to More3s for my music - yes, More1s are better, but More3s are by no means unacceptable.
On the other hand, Oticon’s OpenSound concept allows the wearer to hear more sounds emanating from the sides and back. More technology uses AI to attenuate, but not totally suppress, the sounds it labels “noise”.
(I’m uncertain whether it actually boosts speech sounds, but it’s supposed to "clarify " them. In any event, the SPL differential between speech and noise created/enhanced by MoreSoundIntelligence definitely is effective for me at improving speech intelligibility.)
Previous users of directional, beam-forming hearing aids can initially be overwhelmed by the broader palette of sounds their brain hears in the OpenSound world. For these users, the extra noise suppression provided by More1s would probably provide a more comfortable (and ultimately successful) transition to Oticon’s sound treatment philosophy.
If I were still working, and in a dreadful, open architecture “bullpen” again, I believe that More1s would provide better speech-in-noise performance. Otherwise, there’s really no good reason to discount More3s ability to deliver very good results.
Perhaps More2s would be the best of both worlds (top-tier performance vs economy)? I dunno because I have not done any research on More2s.
That’s my $0.02 worth for now. I intend to post a detailed comparison of More1s vs More3s in a few weeks (after my next audiologist appointment on June 10).
Wow. What helpful advice from you all. I’ve now read through the other threads on this forum (thanks for that suggestion, Volusiano). I think I’ll stick with the Philips trial for another month or so while investigating costs and services in my vicinity for the More aids. The OpenSound concept is appealing to me. The cost isn’t, but it’s not prohibitive either. I just need to learn more before making a decision.
My own hearing environments are probably between the More 3 and 1. My most challenging time is when I give docent tours to children and adults at a local museum – children’s voices, lots of cross-noise from other groups and high ceiling rooms, a real sound melange. My Resounds never performed well at the museum. With touring in hiatus due to the pandemic, waiting and gathering more information makes sense.
A side note: The reason I’m drawn to the new Oticons is my experience with the Alta Pros. They were phenomenal with speech in noise. For example, while on the subway, I could ride easily converse with friends and also eavesdrop easily on conversations around me – as weird as that felt! They were great in the gallery, too. I changed to Costco and Resounds to save money. I like my Costco fitter, and appreciate the affordability of their sales model, but I’m wondering it isn’t time to try Oticon again.
This is where I wish I knew more/had more direct experience with More2. More 3s would, IMO, perform well enough in an environment having multiple echo latencies - our house has a Great Room that’s about 28’ x 30’. We have porcelain tile floors, and lots of windows, so echoes abound - nothing like in your museum, but More3s should permit you to give a decent tour.
I’m not so sure how decently they’ll perform in the subway or on a gallery.
Having worn both Oticons and Unitron (beam-formers), I much prefer the Oticon open sound. You, on the other hand, might hate it.
Best to try several different makes and see which ine you like the best …
Jim I don’t know how or even if possible, but my Audi said that the Oticon aids OPN, OPNS, and the More aids that are level 1 can be programmed like 3, 2, or 1. It would be interesting if it was true to be able to have the software, and to experiment with the aids to see if that was really true. And if true it would be a way to really see the difference in the 3 levels.
@cvkemp: From what I have read, your audiologist is correct: the technology levels for More HAs are a function of firmware/software, and not hardware.
I’ve also read (somewhere here, on the Forum) that the hackaround to effect the level changes are difficult, owing to security features built into the software.
An IT professional like yourself could probably do this, however:
- It’s not an easy hack, and it would void your warranty, and
- No licensed audiologist will help you for fear of losing their distribution franchise.
Nevertheless, we all know that some bravea$$ soul is gonna try!
It’s only true for some parameters and not others. If you look at the comparison table below, you can
-
reduce the max value of the Neural Noise Suppression in the More 1 to the max level of the More 2 or 3.
-
Also, for the Virtual Outer Ear and the Sound Enhancer, you can just pick the 1 configuration that’s the same for all 3 tiers of the More to limit the More 1 to that one configuration.
-
For the Environmental Configuration, you can program the More 1 or 2 to within just the 3 options that the More 3 has to mimic the More 3 3 options there.
-
In the Transient Noise Management, you can limit the 4 configuration in the More 1 to the 3 that exist in the More 2 or 3.
-
You can probably dumb down the 24 Fitting Bands in the More 1 to 20 or 18 by only using the same Fitting Bands available in the 2 or 3.
But other than that, the rest of the differences you see in the comparison table below are not adjustable in Genie 2 in order to dumb down the More 1 to the More 2 or 3 levels. For example, Clear Dynamics is in the More 1 and 2, but you don’t have an option to turn it off in Genie 2 to mimic the lack of Clear Dynamics in the More 3.
All true, @Volusiano, however I have read about people actually trying to access the HA codec directly. Some hackers have even defeated intentional hardware disconnects in the chipset using the graphite of a soft lead pencil to restore the bridge connecting one chip to another within the HA.
Most devices nowadays have the same hardware for all devices of the different levels, and uses security firmware to set the different levels. I have seen this even back before I retired. It is cheaper to do a single hardware design and then set extra options by way of firmware.
Not meaning to derail the thread, but given the frequent mention of options, I note the stress on the unique open soundscape the Oticons provide. I know it’s more than just open domes which in my mind are an open soundscape with the blending of natural and amplified and processed sound delivered.
I know on my Starkeys I have the ability to alter patterns from concentrating on the sound from in front of me, alter to a full surround still with a stress towards a probability of if concentrating on what’s in front with about 30% from one side to the other, or switching between forward “concentration” and the rest of the circle. So what does the feature of open aids offering benefit other methods?
Ah OK, I misunderstood then. I didn’t realize that you guys were talking about hacking the system to fool it to think that it’s a More 1 despite it having been programmed as a More 3 for example, or vice versa. I just assumed that we were talking about using a legit approach (via the Genie 2 software) to emulate down from a More 1 to a More 2 or 3.
Nope, sorry - illegitimate is an ugly word, isn’t it? Perhaps … curiously inventive? Probingly pernicious?
Chuck doesn’t want to fool it - he wants to give the poor little bugger a frontal lobotomy!
No devolution here. Chuck is going to turn hobbits into Hercules!
@eskie227: I can hear my 17-year-old cats if they’re getting sick, hear my epileptic dog having a seizure in another room, hear a pot boiling over, detect weird sounds of trouble emanating from my van or refrigerator, or detect the enemy trying to sneak up on me from behind before he can act.
I can only liken it to driving a compact car packed to the brim with rolls of toilet paper for the next lockdown, compared to the view from the cab of a Dodge Ram with full west coast mirrors.
That’s really not a bad analogy, as far as I’m concerned.
I’m not fully sure I really understand the question asked in the end that is highlighted in bold above.
But the open paradigm that Oticon uses is not the equivalent of using a traditional hearing aid in the Music program for example, where there’s no beam forming, or some kind of setting with beam forming of some degree, whether narrowly out front or half circle or 3/4 circle, etc. That’s because the traditional beam forming doesn’t employ a “noise cancellation” approach that Oticon does.
Noise cancellation using headphones is simple because you have 2 discrete sources, the streaming content, and the environmental noise as picked up by the mics. You can simply cancel out the noise by providing the inversion of the noise signal, since this noise is discrete and not embedded in the streaming content. If you’re streaming from the hearing aids, I guess if you mute your mics to not pick up the surrounding live sounds, that’s a way to do noise cancellation as well.
But noise cancellation from a single source, which is the case of the hearing aids’ mics picking up sounds from the whole environment, is much more difficult to do because the noise is not a separate discrete signal but instead is embedded/diffused with the “sound of interest” (in this case, speech).
The traditional approach uses beam forming to help block out the surrounding noise, but even then, the speech in front is still diffused with the noise coming in front (maybe from behind the speech). But at least now it’s only the noise in front that can’t be blocked.
The OPN does it differently by creating a noise model which is the sounds from behind and on the sides. It then cancels this noise model out during the front speech to help remove the diffused noise. But when speech stops, the cancellation of the noise model stops as well. That creates the perception that the surrounding sound never gets blocked out unlike with the beam forming approach where the surrounding sounds simply get blocked out permanently during that program.
On the More, I don’t think they use a noise model cancellation strategy like with the OPN. Instead they use the deep neural network to learn to accurately break down and separate the various sounds in the sound scene. Once this is accomplished, it becomes easy to manipulate the volume levels of the various sounds in the sound scene to achieve a desired balance. If there’s speech present, it rebalances the sound scene instantly to give priority to speech by suppressing the other sounds to the level preferred and set by the user. Then when speech stops, it dynamically rebalances the sound scene again to un-suppress the surrounding sounds so they come back to life. Again, this give the perception that the sound scene is always open and everything is heard, except only when speech is detected, where noise gets suppressed, but only momentarily during speech.
Really, where/when, I actually thought it was the older PC’s and laptop Intel chips that were being"hacked"
This would make very interesting reading,the HA chips are built on a very small architecture,as in 10nm or even 7nm, I did see an article claiming 2nm was been developed for mainstream use.
Perhaps I got the context wrong. My point was to refute the notion of a legitimate manipulation of the Genie software versus more intrusive ways to re-enable intentionally defeated features.
Surely the minutiae are not essential to the differentiation?