Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

NAL-NL3 Fittings

50 replies1.8k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
Reply

Generally speaking, there are two methodologies doing . One focuses on gain and other focuses on responses. For “responses” methodology (which I prefer), especially dealing with aided speech spectrum responses, use with .

Anyway I’ll stop here for this is another topic for another day.

Edited

Fair enough :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:. Both methods are valid and useful for different things. Also, I checked out your blog and see you are have a very technical mind about this stuff. Moreso than I. I’ve just explored the software at a surface level for practical use so I humbly submit to your technical arguments :hugs:

Wow great post, lots of useful information coming out,very interesting.

In reply to @DrJimmyJoeJimbob

@DrJimmyJoeJimbob

I really appreciate your comments and help.

Way back I worked for 3M Canada in the power house. 110 . No hearing protection.

New company doc sent me to University of Western Ontario for extensive hearing test. That was about 1980?

They said I had hearing loss due to noise and inherited hearing loss. I have no evidence. They train audiologists. There.

Live had one audiologist who prescribed my hearing aids. She qualified. Me for workman’s compensation.

she was amazing. Incredible.

I’ve had workman’s comp for about 20 years. Thank heaven.

I have a hearing instrument specialist now who is amazing

I’m using 4 year old Paradise P90R’s. Phonak has been incredible with after sales service.

DaveL

Toronto

This is maybe just patriotic of me and I need to dig in a bit further, but at first glance is NL3 just. . . a bit closer to ?

(And let me mention again that DSL has had noise targets for years, despite NAL claiming that they are the first.)

I mentioned this a while back, I think everything today is just a variation of something already done, like is it possible to reinvent the wheel!

Well, but if the targets are converging to some better ideal, that’s a good thing.

I think big data will be more powerful for subdividing groups a bit or, getting better targets for reverse slope or menieres.

Well said. NL3 is set up so they can add modules when enough data is analyzed to where there is conclusive benefit in a specific case. So far, the main program emphasizes speech in noise. The only two modules are “comfort in noise” (notice that’s NOT “speech in noise”), and “Minimal Hearing Loss Module” (for those with normal hearing but speech-in-noise struggles).

I know the future modules planned are music listening, extended high frequency settings, and profound hearing loss.

As I’ve said before, I think there will also be a paradigm shift that gives anyone with a closed fit superhuman speech discrimination in noise, within the next decade, due to processing.

In reply to @Neville

Yeah, it looks more like a Paed rationale: 5 more in the HF, more roll off at the low end.

Going to be a bit clearer for most and potentially more feedback for others.

From the way people describe these things, you’d think they’d reinvented the wheel, but it ‘looks’ more like a way of charging for another round of licensing and justifying why they exist.

I’m not entirely sure the people doing the research on these things are entirely relevant anymore given:

1: The individuality of loudness growth.

2: The individuality of cochlear degradation.

3: The environmental dynamic function of hearing aids.

4: The plethora of situations to which the aid might be expected to adapt.

5: The active/passive listening of the wearer.

6: The relevance of the signal.

7: functionality and control of the speech signal.

8: The communication needs/adaptation/experience/ tiredness/ cognitive function of the wearer…..etc.

Having a standard that defines ‘sound X in = sound Y out’ seems a bit simplistic. A starting point, yes great, but something fantastic? Hardly.

I’m not sure if you set two clients up side by side with NAL 2 or 3 and a explained the function of a 3 bar equaliser you’d be any closer to getting a better result in either case after a few weeks: but NAL3. has potential to give you more feedback issues during that time.

Related discussions