Why ever a 312 battery over a 13?

Hearing Aid Batteries
#1

Was discussing the new phonak battery “non-recharge” aids that they recently released with my wife this morning. She’s a Speech Terapist…one of her masters is in Deaf Education…she works with a lot of hearing impared folks, folks with cochlear implants, etc…
Anyway, I was bringing up my frustration that they released a 312 battery RIC model, but not a 13…
all around the topic of why I’m not on board with rechargeables…

Anyway, I doubled down on my question…why would anyone choose a 312 battery over a 13?

When I was getting these, my 1st pair of aids, the Audi was going to put me with a 312 model, based n the power needs of my hearing loss.
In my research I found the the 13 aids are 0.7mm thicker than the 312 model…so negligible
the 13 battery has something like twice the power capacity of the 312.
and when I asked the price difference, she was selling them at the same price.
so it was ano-brainer decision for me and I have been very happy with my decision for the 13’s
I easily get 7+ days life. That works out to be a very easy habit to just change batteries every Saturday morning…and assume with the 312 would be something like 3-1/2 days… so no easy replacement habit would mean that I’d probably be inconvenienced a lot more

The 13 future proofs better in case your program demands more power as the years pass
312 means twice as many batteries to buy and to toss… etc.
Even for very small child’s ears, I can’t think that 0.7mm will be very noticeable…

I just can’t see a single advantage to the 312 for an RIC. What am I missing?
and why would Phonal select 312 instead of a 13 for their only RIC model??

4 Likes
#2

If you could get the exact same hearing aid with either battery i would probably pick the 13. Many times in the past, the smaller form was only offered with 312 and the larger forms were offered with 13. So there was a size difference. I expect rechargeables will make it moot. Rechargeables way outsell replaceables and replaceables will probably be relegated to niche category.

2 Likes
#3

Wondering the same as @bradw .
I wouldn’t mind either having my HA 1mm thicker.
These rechargeables are at the moment not the solution. Now I have to keep them loaded if they are sleeping in the cupboard. And they will not get very old either.
It is the same problem as with the phones, everything has to be smaller and non removable. I wouldn’t care if my HA is 1gr heavier because of a bigger battery.

1 Like
#4

If thickness is of utmost importance, (perhaps dealing with bothersome eyeglasses) than the slightest bit of increased thickness may matter. Otherwise I agree with you that 13 size is more practical.

2 Likes
#5

I think that the life of the batteries is going to vary wildly, depending on usage patterns, HA model, and hearing loss.

I wore Oticon Alta Pros with 312 batteries for 10 years and consistently got 8 days out of them. The batteries would almost always die within an hour of one another, so I would replace both when one went out.

I just did a quick Google search, and my results suggest that while both batteries are 7.9mm in diameter, the 13 are 5.4mm thick while the 312 are 3.6mm. That is a difference of 1.8mm - or put another way, the 13 are 50% thicker than the 312. In real-world terms, that would mean that my old Oticons would have to increase from a 7mm width to almost 9mm to accommodate the 13s. I have to imagine that there would be a noticeable increase in weight as well.

So, choices like that are not always so cut and dried.

4 Likes
#6

I like streaming whole day. This uses my batteries and I don’t like having over ear headphones over my HA as I also use to do sometimes. Uncomfortable in combination with my glasses…

1 Like
#7

yep, the battery is quite a bit thicker, but based on my Phonak Marvels… the 312 model is only 0.7mm thinner. Not enough to matter and most folks would likely be hard pressed to see the difference if they aren’t holding them side by side…

you prompted me to dig up the capacity…specs found on some random battery site
power one, rayovac, and I think it was duracel
size 13 ranges from 280mAh to 300 mAh… call it 290 mAh
size 312 ranges from 160mAh to 190 mAh… call it 190mAh
so it’s more like 52% more power… call it 50%
so my memory was wrong about it being double.

and 312 would likely give me about 4-1/2 to 5 days instead of the 7-8 I get now…

#8

I think that manufacturers like to stand out as a manufacturer that made a thinner hearing aid than the competition. And if they follow the logic that people will look at beauty and less noticeable and not performance… It bothers me too, I like rechargeable hearing aids, but I would like them to put a bigger battery that would give autonomy of at least 20 hours and not 16 hours. … But don’t worry, hearing aids are coming soon that will have the same battery and will offer much better performance like the Starkey Genesis. Starkey genesis has an autonomy of up to 45 hours. They achieved this with the production of processors in fewer nanometers, and processors in fewer nanometers consume less electricity and provide better performance because more transistors can be inserted on the chip, etc.

#9

Yeah, I would understand that to a point…if for example the aids were 1.8 mm thinner (the difference in battery thickness). That’s something. Still not enough to matter for me, but still I would understand that. Maybe some aids are that much thinner in the 312 compared to the 13…The only one’s I’ve really looked at were these Marvels and the Oticon aids that I was trialing at the time. That was almost 5 years ago!

One other thought came to mind because of your post… I can understand the smaller battery for these fully in the ear canal little aids. I still contend that it’s senseless for a BTE or RIC aid.

1 Like
#10

I dont think Phonak wanted to come out with a replaceable battery Lumity, but maybe felt pressured into it because their current rechargeable will not fit all circumstances. Some first responders (and others) need 24 hr access to working aids, and have an unpredictable schedule during the 24 hr shift.

So the 312 gives them more than enough time.

1 Like
#11

I recently got a pair of used Phonak M50-13t’s. I get about 7 days from the 13 batteries. My öther aids take 312 batteries and they get 4 days.

#12

My Marvel M70 312 (rear), and Paradise P90-13T (front). Not a direct like for like as the Paradise are RIC, but if anything, the Paradise are smaller. I get 3.5 and 6 days respectively

20240410_083011
20240410_0830111920×1440 388 KB

Peter

#13

@PeterH and @wdgowen
Are you talking about battery life without streaming? Would be informative to know.

#14

sadly no, as I stream regularly, especially with the TV Connector

1 Like
#15

I just get about 3 days max with all of my 312 aids. But I do stream a whole lot of music, tv and phone every day. Luckily replacing them is always possible and easy. Although it excites me every time as they are running out during incoming calls very often and that moment is unforeseen. For outgoing calls I can check my batteries on forehand.
With my rechargeables I cannot get through a whole day if I stream unless I can recharge or exchange in between.
I vote for bigger batteries despite of bigger HA’s.

1 Like
#16

Measured with a digital caliper my M90-312T is 7.14mm. My M50-13T is 8.05mm. So the difference is .91mm or 0.036" or a little over 1/32". I can’t tell the difference when they are in my ears.

To repeat my earlier post I get 4-5 days on the 312 batteries and 6-7 days on the 13’s. This is with no streaming. I use wireless Sennheiser RS120 over ear headphones when I can’t understand TV speech with the aids only. For news programs with trained hosts I can usually do without the headphones. For any sort of dramatic program I frequently have to use the headphones.

If there is a lot of background noise in my house I can switch to the Public T-coil program and turn off the mics on the aids.

One minor annoyance with the 13’s is that they are harder to remove from the aids, Putting new ones in is easy.

#17

I agree that there’s no point in making a 312 battery aid that isn’t meaningfully smaller than it would be with a 13 battery. I had ReSound Quattro in 13 and 312, and the smaller size of the 312 made a difference behind my ear. Only the 13 version had a telecoil, and I don’t know how much size the telecoil contributed, versus using space that would’ve otherwise been empty to accommodate the larger battery. But nevertheless the fact remains that the 312 version was smaller.

#18

Size matters… some dont have the real-estate behind their ears, like me. The size difference can be felt if already a tight fit.

#19

312 batteries are more often used in smaller hearing aid models due to their compact size. They may be preferable for people who value less visibility of the device or who benefit from a narrower hearing aid housing. However, the choice of battery also depends on the individual preferences and needs of the user. In the case of the RIC model, Phonak’s decision to choose the 312 battery may be due to their desire to make the device more compact and easier to carry.

#20

bradw, I gave you a “thumbs-up” on the subject header before even reading your post, LOL! I SO TOTALLY agree with your being perplexed as to the 312-release for Phonak’s Lumity Life aids. Unless Phonak owns and sells 312-batteries thru a subsidiary, it makes no sense to me.

First off: most seniors would have a slightly easier time with the larger batteries, altho to wdgowen’s point, yes, I do recall I had to tug a bit to get the 13 battery out of my Marvel aids. I got about an extra 2-3 days use from the larger battery over the smaller ones. So that made me happy.

And there’s NO comparison in my mind between the benefits of a 13-battery aid vs rechargeable. Call me an alien, but I loathe and detest rechargeables. My 13-battery aids gave me SIX days of use, vs 17 hrs MAX with the rechargeables. How is that a benfit to anyone?

I need two redundant pairs of them just to get through 24 hours. I’ll never get rid of my Marvel aids cuz I’d need them for int’l flights at a MINIMUM. Too bad they are older and don’t offer the speech comprehension benefit of the newer Lumity Life aids.

2 Likes