Nevelle told me many years ago that most self programmed hearing aids are under fit, not enough gain or volume.
My thoughts on this are the Insitu fittings are under fit because of the manufacturers proprietary algorithms being a little low concerning gain.
So fitting with RIM will consistently need a little more gain to satisfy the RIM targets. This can be uncomfortable for many until acclimated.
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this.
That agrees with my worst ever button pusher over Thanksgiving with Resound One 9 trial. The speech performance was no where near what I needed.
Not quite sure I understand. Is RIM Real Ear measurement or something else that I donât understand?
Yes, sorry about that that brain fart.
RIM is a brewing term for a type of mashing system. Kegging an oatmeal chocolate stout probably tomorrow and brewing is ony mind.
You are correct, REM. Real ear measurement.
That WOULD be painful for the ears. LOL
Yes, manufacturers tell you to verify against NL2. You can also verify a proprietary rationale against DSL, but because they are all based on NL2 it just requires a lot more wrangling. Recall, rationales are just gain targets, so it can certainly be done. It will just start out further away and you have to make more changes to get to DSL.
No manufacturer has ever once suggested to me that a user might have a better experience with their proprietary rationale. Itâs not an expectation.
Just because I wanted to de-mystify it a bit. They are talking to an audiologist. An audiologist who has better knowledge of the particular product and is employed by Oticon to help out other clinicians. But they are still providing audiological recommendations, just with a deeper understanding of the product than some clinicians have.
I think I answered your other question above (or in another similar thread right now?) Manufacturers typically develop proprietary fitting rationales to try to minimize returns in a young industry that has a lot of weak providers. Keep in mind that they are also international, and as much as many users of this forum struggle for access to good hearing care, there are a lot of other countries where that access is much worse.
But you bring up a good pointâthere are individuals who are part of a âsmall populationâ of hearing loss for whom independent targets have not been developed. If a manufacturer can say, âHey, we did this for you and incorporated the results into our proprietary fittingâ that is absolutely a sales feature. On the other hand, I donât think youâre on the right track when you suggest that their proprietary rationales are also circumventing weaknesses in their devices. If their device cannot manage two of the most frequently used systems in the world then they have a real problem.
Thanks for your answers, @Neville . I agree that mfgs wouldnât use their own rationales to circumvent weaknesses in their devices, because there shouldnât be any weaknesses and the minimal standard should be to be able to perform to par with the standard rationales at the minimum in the first place.
Itâs more often likely the opposite, where they have strengths in their devices that cannot be optimized with features or parameters that can be shared with the standard rationales, so they use their proprietary rationales to incorporate those special strengths from either their hardware devices, or from the proprietary knowledges they gain through their research into the implementation of their own rationales (like with how they might have chosen to handle the cookie bite loss differently and incorporate it into their rationales as theyâve indicated in that educational video I mentioned earlier).
Interesting how so many here feel like fitting algorithms are so unique and special when hearing aids can be adjusted so many ways.
Switching algorithm alone does make a difference in my experience. But, if a personâs hearing aids have been properly tuned for a personâs hearing loss when the fitting algorithm is changed that personâs speech understanding will go down. Then the aids will need to be re-tuned for optimum performance.
My hearing loss was pretty bad when I did these tests. Maybe someone with less hearing loss would get different results but my experience changing fitting algorithms has proven to just require re-tuning
the aids for best speech understanding.
I had great luck with Insitu self programming hearing aids thanks to help from many here on this forum.
Hi, is the book mentioned above worth having for a DIY member?
In particular Iâm thinking of the tricky part of recognising sound qualities and the remedy.
Only book I saw mentioned was on post #86 Fitting and Dispensing Hearing Aidsemphasized text**
Iâm not familiar with it, but in general increasing your understanding of what youâre doing is good, but I wouldnât expect it to give specific remedies for different sound qualities. All of the HA programming software Iâve seen does usually have a section that deals with recommended solutions.
Thankyou Mdb, the problem I have is I always seem to be moving away from the starting point ie using audibilty fine tuning makes it worse.
I think it may be a REM issue, trying to reproduce a regime fitted with it but only using in situ.
There should be a section in the software that is aimed at basic issues and offers suggested solutions. Is that what youâre talking about? In Phonakâs Target software itâs called Automatic Fine Tuning. DIY section of the forum is likely a better place to get more info.
Yes youâre right. I need something beyond auto fine tuning. Spent hours on Audiology online etc.but not found it yet.
Thanks.
I think youâd be disappointed if you bought it to help with DIY.
I think this is an area of programming that is more art than science. Iâd suggest describing your issues on DIY section of forum and seeing what suggestions you get. Iâd expect a fair amount of trial and error. Thereâs also the possibility that thereâs something wrong with the hearing aid. Unless sound quality issues are extreme, one can often get used to them and they become the new normal.
Yes I think I will have to bite the bullet one day. Iâm trying to reproduce the sound of a much older aid which has been a friend for five years.
I thought about asking for a library of sounds which represented " hollow and tinny" or âdullâ or "incomprehensible "but then what would I be listening to them through?
If I were talking to an audi Iâd have trouble describing what i was hearing, apart from lisping.
Donât think itâs the aids, same results on three pairs all phonak like my NHS originals.
It is a subjective matter as well, with limitless possibilities of bias, uncertainty, and miscommunication. That is the main reason I rather take the empirical/DIY path in most cases.
You asked for it ⌠here it is 
