Starkey S Series IQ

Well they aren’t the only ones who think bluetooth replacements are the way to go - so does Resound. But no one will bash them for that because they aren’t Starkey.

dr. amy

@dr.amy said:

Well they aren’t the only ones who think bluetooth replacements are the way to go - so does Resound. But no one will bash them for that because they aren’t Starkey.

dr. amy

We do not know yet for sure if such product does in indeed work well… If there is someone
who can pull this off is GN. Lets keep things in perspective, Jabra is the #1 headset in the markey- they do know 1 or 2 things bluetooth.

@xbulder said:

We do not know yet for sure if such product does in indeed work well… If there is someone
who can pull this off is GN. Lets keep things in perspective, Jabra is the #1 headset in the markey- they do know 1 or 2 things bluetooth.

That line of thought would then suggest that their “Beetle” bluetooth option would have been great - it was a piece of junk.

dr. amy

@dr.amy said:

That line of thought would then suggest that their “Beetle” bluetooth option would have been great - it was a piece of junk.

dr. amy

If someone can pull this off is GN. They have already master this technology.

That isnt what drives the price anyway - and they do have great moisture control

dr. amy

@xbulder said:

Starkey does not have multiband adaptative directionality.
A small correction to UM bongo, siemens do have multiband directionality.
GN has also multiband directionality. Pretty much everybody out there…

If such a Fabry fan - and so am i (especially after having attended a presentation of his this past weekend, well done Dr. Fabry :D) then did you not read his post that multiband adaptive directionality works best in a lab, not in the real world where reverberation is present…

If not useful in the real world, why slam Starkey for not using it??

dr. amy

@xbulder said:

got to cost less, they have less technology. NO wireless

What advantages does wireless provide?

John

0500 R-40 L-35
1000 R-55 L-40
2000 R-65 L-60
4000 R-85 L-75
8000 R-95 L-70

@dr.amy said:

If such a Fabry fan - and so am i (especially after having attended a presentation of his this past weekend, well done Dr. Fabry :D) then did you not read his post that multiband adaptive directionality works best in a lab, not in the real world where reverberation is present…

If not useful in the real world, why slam Starkey for not using it??

dr. amy

Those phrases don’t say the same thing.

It’s true to say reverb affects the directionality in close proximity to other objects, however ALL directional effects are eroded by this. So Starkey’s conventional adaptive technology suffers the same fate.

If the person is on the street, in a hall, watching a performance, out on a golf-course, in a supermarket there are plenty of situations where they will be in less/non reverberant conditions. Why not incorporate a feature that will help them deal with multiple noise sources if you can?

One other point to mention which appears to have escaped everybody is the apparent preservation of sounds both in the wirelessly connected aids and in the separate ones. If you are sitting at a desk with a wall four feet to your left, it’s true that the directionality of the aid suffers from the reflected portion of the signal. However due to head-shadow the translated effect on the right ear is massively reduced from 2KHz upwards where most of the faster plosives and sibilants will be heard. Moreso, on the newer R/L wireless comparison fitted within aids like the Agil there’s a decision being made about the sound source and consequent directional plots, which may switch the right-hand aid to a HF directional while leaving the left in a different plot to optimise the output given the more complex input.

What I guess I’m saying is that discounting this kind of technology out of hand strikes me more as desperate marketing than providing better solutions. Better still, if you’ve nothing positive to say about other people’s products then don’t say anything at all, because all you are doing is a disservice to the industry in general.

The dynamics of adaptive directional microphone behavior are well defined. The discussion in this thread is misleading to consumers or professionals looking for accurate information. These are the facts:

• Adaptive directional microphones work well for single noise sources, in the absence of secondary background noise, at a close distance to the listener.

https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/sih/doi/10.1055/s-2005-871003

• Adaptive directional microphones do not provide additional benefit, when compared to a static polar pattern, in situations with multiple noise sources, noise sources at a distance, or in situations with moderate or high-reverberation.

http://aja.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/73

• Few listening environments offer appropriate sound distribution for an adaptive directional microphone to steer accurately and provide additional benefit over a static array. In an appropriate environment the adaptive directional microphone may outperform the static condition by up to 1 dB. An improvement in signal-to-noise ratio of 1dB could be beneficial for some hearing aid wearers.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14992020903518128

Adaptive beamforming is an established and easily accessed technology. There are freely available algorithms that anyone with the engineering expertise could implement to create an adaptive directional microphone array. There’s very little mystery in the implementation, people have been over-selling this technology since it’s introduction in hearing aids.

@Um_bongo said:

What I guess I’m saying is that discounting this kind of technology out of hand strikes me more as desperate marketing than providing better solutions. Better still, if you’ve nothing positive to say about other people’s products then don’t say anything at all, because all you are doing is a disservice to the industry in general.

I have plenty positive to say about other products, such as the Siemens TEK and the new line of Resound products. I just see such a small number of real world situations in which there is a SINGLE noise source and reverberation is that low and patients are that close to the noise source to warrant letting multiband directionality features dictate what products i fit.

My intention certainly was not disservice. But i think that slamming a certain manufacturer not matter what they produce is the same as loving a manufacturer no matter how big their faults. I certainly see Starkey products and their adaptive directionality benefit patients, but on the other hand there are features (T2) that have big downfalls. No manufacturer is the best at everything, nor does any single one benefit all patients.

dr. amy

@Um_bongo said:

Hello,

Why do the first two studies date back five years? How many product iterations and refinements have been made since then? (there was no E2E wireless technology at all, was there?)

Who published that last Study?

That last bit is a bit bold as well, especially when you consider that even 1% improvement in SNR can result in a 10% improvement in speech intelligibility.

To paraphrase: Nice Sauces, you just might want a bit more salt with them.

Siemens got E2E a very very long time ago. What was it @ least 4 yrs right?

@xbulder said:

Siemens got E2E a very very long time ago. What was it @ least 4 yrs right?

About that.

My point was that the first study used the Claro as it’s benchmark, now, if you remember programming the Claro, it was the aid which could make a bus disappear from your aural spectrum just as you were getting close to it…

It’s hardly a side by side analysis of real world performance of CURRENT hearing technology.

Problem is, I like Starkey, here in the UK they have some of the best staff - good approachable customer service and very good ITE and repair service.

I just wish they’d give the ‘turd-polishing’ a rest until they manage to invent something or innovate the paradigm forward like they did with ITE.

@Um_bongo said:

Sorry, I meant you’ve in the case of Starkey, not you personally.

The multiband adaptive deals with multiple potential noise sources not just single.

Don’t get me wrong, I fit more Starkey product than Oticon and it’s not a case of ‘slamming’ one product or another. However the arguments made about the above are pretty simialr to what we were told two years ago by the head of Starkey UK - they didn’t consider pursuing a wireless product because the other manufacturers were doomed to fail with it: and now we’re getting a Starkey based wireless system in the pipeline.

The problem is that Starkey have never reached the heights that they did when the first ITE came out. Playing catch-up is hard enough in some ways, but using your funded supporters to put out negative messages about the opposition’s product is just really short-sighted marketing IMHO.

We’re on the same page - i didn’t mean YOU slamming them

dr. amy

@dr.amy said:

We’re on the same page - i didn’t mean YOU slamming them

dr. amy

No problems.

I need a holiday: Now, you know that guy who needed an Audiologist in the Bay Area - CA. Do you think he’d be up for a fiitting on a flying visit?