Phonak Marvel vs Resound Quattro


#41

I’ll just say this: the listening experience of music in normal day life with Marvels is richer, clearer, easier. And, still richer and clearer when compared directly: Quattro music mode to Marvel music mode. This is obviously subjective, so to each his own.


#42

also interested in your further observations, how you compare both in quiet, normal, noisy environments (without music)?


#43

Planning on doing a full write up soon. Need more time to test Marvels. They are both excellent aids, but for my life with constant noise exposure and needing to hear speech clearly, it seems Marvels are performing better.


#44

thanks!
looking forward to it.


#45

Since I think both NAL-NL2 and DSL5-Adult are an improvement in speech clarity/audibility over ReSound’s Audiogram+, it would be interesting to know what fitting algorithm you’re using with your Quattro’s(Audiogram+ is supposedly closer to the early NAL-NL(1) fit). I noticed that Siemens, for example, seems to be a big fan of NAL-NL2-like fitting. Perhaps Marvel’s sound better because Phonak’s algorithm is also an NAL-NL2-like fit?

Also, just noticed that ReSound definition of BASS, MIDTONES, AND TREBLE is way different than the generally accepted definition found in Wikipedia, for example.

Wikipedia’s definition goes something like this:

    Bass - 16 to 256 Hz

   Midtones - 256 to 2048 Hz

   Treble - 2048–16384 Hz (C7–C10)

ReSound’s definition of what frequencies are controlled by the Smart 3D app

    Bass - Frequencies below 1 KHz

   Midtones - Frequencies between 1 and 3 KHz

   Treble - Frequencies above 3 KHz (up to 9.4 KHz for the Quattro)
                                                            “legacy” products up to 7 KHz

Resound’s definitions appear at about 7:30 in 11 min Smart 3D app video for providers at Audiology Online: ReSound LiNX Quattro: ReSound Smart 3D app - AudiologyOnline


#46

Thanks Jim! Both my Quattro’s and Marvels are REM fit with DSL5- adult.


#47

I got a thread “demoted” by discussing something about exact fitting methodology in the main part of the forum. I’d be interested to know, perhaps answered at a place of your choice in the DIY section, how “loudness” esp. at high frequencies is controlled for you in DSL5-Adult. Perhaps the REM fit controls the putative loudness? I’ve read stuff about how it’s controlled for Don (there’s a thread with some discussion in DIY) but I would be most interested in what happens with your fit there, too. Trust you’ve seen the suggestion that Neville made to Volusiano about trying different fits as different programs within a phone app - neat idea. I wonder how providers would react to such requests from HA users?!


#48

Here is a document on Phonak’s view of NAL-NL2 and DSL v5 compared to their Adaptive Phonak Digital fitting formula. Not sure how old it is, because it is not dated. The newest reference at the very bottom is from 2009, so perhaps a little dated. If nothing else it provides some comparison between NAL-NL2 and DSL v5.

Adaptive Phonak Digital


#49

It’s from 2013, see last page:

028-0953-02/V1.00/2013-03/na Printed in XXXX © Phonak AG All rights reserved


#50

Tricky! They put it sideways on the page.


#51

I have such severe to profound loss in my high frequencies, I may not be the best one to chime in on this. My original LiNX was also DSL5 adult, so it’s all I know.


#52

That might be a possible explanation as to why DSL5 isn’t overamplified for you. Don also has a pretty severe high frequency loss, too, and is comfortable with DSL5 as well (after some MPO amplification adjustment).