Hi, I’ve just started working with Genie and have a few questions.
Latest Audiology online course says to avoid feedback analyser but past posts suggest using it every time.
@Um_bongo and other Oticonians, what is the current thinking?
I have no sound control tab in fine tuning, I’m programming Xceed ones, is this normal.
In situ says not to use for mixed loss,and I did enter my BC on the audiogram. I thought insitu would accommodate this.
Having adjusted fitting assistant there is an immediate undo but once accepted there doesn’t appear to be a reset fine tuning like in Target. Do I just go back to the last session instead.
Thanks.
Did they say why? In most cases you need to set this up, otherwise you may get feedback.
Have you got a screenshot of this message, I’m not sure I’ve seen that one before.
I thought only if it’s a big difference (don’t quote me but like 20dB or something like that)
@michael1 if you want advice from the pro’s you’ll probably need to repost in general HAs categories they may not see it here on DIY.
Thanks @tenkan ,hopefully this is from the transcript-So interestingly enough, Oticon’s recommendation is actually to not run the feedback
analyzer with every fitting that you have. And the reason for that is sometimes when
you do run the feedback analyzer, the system can be a little bit more aggressive at
cutting out gain than it needs to be.
I’ll try for that screenshot and I’ll give @Um_bongo a pm.
@tenkan , I’ve had to use my phone to get a screen shot
It’s a popup on air bone gap.
Trying to upload.
Sorry does not work. You’ll need to enter an air bone gap and then hover over "air bone gap "
So do you actually have a conductive loss on that ear from your audiologist, I mean have you had any treatment for this outer/middle ear loss, but anyways remember it says it’s not recommended, so I’d just go ahead, you can if you wanted just not enter the BC on that side, it’s not going to make a big difference. I noticed your in-situ fitting is a bit different from what you’ve uploaded, it’s to be expected of course, but again just go ahead and see what you get in your results for how you hear, I’m interested because I never bother with BC in my fittings.
If you’ve reached out to @Um_bongo then I’m sure he’ll have more to say on this, he fits Oticon in his clinics as well
Yes I do have bc losses in both ears. Nhs have never raised it as
a problem. My aids just coped. Will be doing some experiments.
Thanks. M
Ok keep us posted on progress.
Sorry, I don’t frequent the DIY section of the forum regularly so I didn’t see this thread until now.
I saw you mentioned that you’d PM Um_bongo, so hopefully you’ve already gotten some answer for your questions. My personal take on this question is that the Feedback Analyzer is the old traditional reactive feedback management system. The new proactive/preventative feedback management technology introduced starting on the OPN S and later is the Sound Optimizer. It’s available in the Automatics section and is sinply called Feedback Manager (although the marketing and whitepaper refers to the name Sound Optimizer to indicate this new feedback prevention feature). I think the current thinking is that if the new Sound Optimizer feature is adequate to manage any feedback issues you may have, then it’s not necessary to use the traditional reactive Feedback Analyzer. The drawback of using the traditional Feedback Analyzer is that it can eat into the gain headroom that you might have been able to spare if you had only used the Sound Optimizer only.
I don’t know what past posts you’re referring to that suggested using the Feedback Analyzer every time, but generally, if the Sound Optimizer is causing fluttering issues for you such that you need to turn the Automatics → Feedback Management setting (for the Sound Optimizer) to Low (or OFF), and this setting is not enough to prevent feedback from happening, then you would want to fall back and start using the traditional reactive Feedback Analyzer technology to help supplement the inadequate Feedback Management (aka Sound Optimizer) technology.
Generally, for folks with bad hearing losses (severe to profound usually) like yourself, it’s more likely that even if you don’t have any fluttering issue with the Sound Optimizer and are able to set it to Normal, it may still not be able to lick feedback issues for you 100% of the time. In that case, you can also turn on and enable the Feedback Analyzer option to supplement the Sound Optimizer so that you can get both technologies (old and new) working to get rid of feedbacks for you.
So there’s really no conflict per se as to having the Audiology Online courses telling you not to use it, and certain threads/posts telling you to use it. It’s a matter of how to apply either or both depending on the specific individual situation. I suspect that with your hearing losses, you might need to use both. But hey, if just using the Sound Optimizer alone can remove feedback altogether for you, then you shouldn’t need to use the traditional Feedback Analyzer.
It doesn’t seem normal to me because as you can see below, I selected the Xceed 1 for my simulated Genie 2 session and I’m able to see the Sound Controls tab just fine in the Fine Tuning section. But note that my hearing loss is not as bad as yours in the low frequencies, so I don’t know if that makes any difference or not. It shouldn’t though. I thought that maybe there’s somewhere in the Preferences option in the pulldown menu where it’s set to OFF, but I really don’t see it. Can you show be a screenshot of where you don’t see it?
I googled to see what “mixed hearing loss” means. Below is one description of it. Then I googled whether conductive hearing loss can be treated with hearing aids or not, and the second screenshot says that it can with air conduction or bone conduction or bone anchored HAs. I don’t know whether air conduction HA is the same as the typical HAs most people use or not, but perhaps not. My understanding is that the types of HAs Oticon dispenses here, including the Xceed, are to treat sensorineural hearing loss, not conductive hearing loss. Maybe I’m wrong and @Um_bongo can correct me here if I’m wrong, but perhaps that’s why the in-situ help not says that it’s not for mixed loss.
Sorry I haven’t used the Fitting Assistant and let it re-prescribe my gain curves for me based on whatever my selections in the session. But I would agree that simply go back to the last session (and make sure not to save your current session should undo whatever the Fitting Assistant changed for you.
Select different fitting formulas and it works for some and doesn’t work for others.
1 Like
Air Conduction is anything that goes through the ear normally.
So any HAs can treat both SN and Conducive.
Conductive loss can in fact work well with hearing aids depending on what has caused it.
Some people have normal cochlear function but conductive loss so a BAHA would suit depending on other factors as well.
Before Chemo took my hearing, I had a mixed loss.
SN loss, you get 1/3 gain need through any normal HAs.
Conductive loss, you get 1/2 gain through any normal HAs.
Mixed loss, depending on how big the gap is, will depend on how much gain you’ll have.
There’s many factors surrounding how to treat a conductive loss.
1 Like
Thanks for the helpful post.
Regarding feedback, the instructions for velox platform were to run it whereas the online course party aimed at real were not to for the reasons you explained. So iwas seeking an experienced view.
Um bongo was involved in2017 with the discussion, I think he be on holiday so no reply yet.
I’ve updated my audiogram and have both air and bone losses so I entered both and saw the warning, it must not be able to cope for some reason. Since then i have removed the bone loss and the gain has increased about 30%.
Sound control is not available for Nal prescriptions apparently.
Ah, yes, that is correct. I remember now. Like @Zebras mentioned, Sound Controls is only available for VAC+ rationales. Any of the standard rationales would not have it. That would make sense because any of the Sound Controls coloration would alter the authenticity of the standard rationale chosen.
The Velox platform was only for the original OPN line. When the OPN S line came out, the Velox platform became the Velox S platform. The Sound Optimizer wasn’t available for the Velox platform at the time, so it’s natural that the instruction for the Velox platform would be to run it because there wouldn’t have been any of the Sound Optimizer Feedback Management available anyway.
I just realized that the Xceed is based on the Velox platform like the OPN is, so you don’t really have the Sound Optimizer feature on the Xceed in the first place. That’s why that Feedback Management option in Automatics is either ON or OFF, because that’s just the ON/OFF switch for the Feedback Analyzer. So for the Xceed, you definitely only have the Feedback Analyzer for your use, so for sure you’d want to run the Feedback Analyzer to get the noise measured and gain headroom adjusted (reduced) to suppress feedback.
1 Like
Thanks again. It’s a steep curve for me!
I’ve already fallen into the trap of not setting both ears to the same experience level ! You can’t do that in Target!
Have I misunderstood? Isn’t it based on the Velox S? This is what the hospital told me when I got issued my NHS Xceed.
1 Like
This says Velox S as well.
1 Like
I’m sure you’re correct, @Zebras , since you’re quoting from the source Oticon themselves that the Xceed is based on the Velox S platform.
I was going off the Genie 2 menu below and guessed incorrectly that it was based on the Velox. The reason I guessed incorrectly is because I didn’t see the “Low” value that I was accustomed to seeing for the Sound Optimizer (as seen in the Feedback Management options in the Automatics page in the Genie 2 screenshot below) since Oticon has updated the More firmware to allow for a Low value in the MoreSound Optimizer to help minimize the fluttering effect. So by not seeing the Low value, I incorrectly assume that it implies that it does not have the Sound Optimizer technology.
So I guess what happened is that Oticon did the firmware update/fix to the Polaris based HAs to add Low to the Sound Optimizer, but they didn’t do any firmware fix on the Velox S based HAs like the Xceed or the OPN S to fix this fluttering issue then. I changed the aid selection to OPN S and saw the same thing in Feedback Management → no Low value.
So I guess I need to modify my recommendation to @michael1 again that he has an option to enable and run the traditional Feedback Analyzer, but maybe he can get away without using it as long as setting the Sound Optimizer Feedback Management setting to ON eliminates any feedback he may have without the side effect of fluttering.
1 Like
Sorry; been busy, new branch practice opening in the next couple of months.
This is definitely in the ‘it depends’ bucket. And what it depends on is whether the aids are stable.
If you’re running power double domes or moulds and you don’t get feedback until your hand is sitting right over your hearing aid, then you don’t need the FBM.
If you get slight instability in a car or when in a narrow bathroom, then it’s a yes, but wind off the limit a bit.
If the aid is completely unstable, then it’s an obvious yes, but also consider increasing the amount of mould occlusion in place and refer to the above.
I hope this adds to what you’ve learned above. Also consider manually adjusting any output peaks of the hearing aid around 2.5-3KHz if that’s where the resonance is. They exist due to hearing aid manufacturers trying to emulate ‘natural’ ear canal sounds; with a 70-80dB loss; you haven’t been hearing ‘natural’ canal sounds for a while, so you won’t necessarily miss them, but they can definitely be a source of over resonance within feedback.
Thank you and good luck with the new branch. I don’t suppose you’d consider Doncaster? I’d be prepared to propose marriage despite being a retired fireman. Im ready to get in touch with my feminine side!
Back to your logical answer, I’ve been indoctrinated by Target and fallen into the trap of following procedure , whereas your experience just gets to the point.
Wth respect to insitu, is it simply that the algorithm can’t cope with the variables?