Ugh, that’s not what I want to hear either as I’m considering that same .
I’d be interested to hear what the failure reason might have been. If their anything like Phonak they won’t divulge the indepth reason!!
Ugh, that’s not what I want to hear either as I’m considering that same HA.
I’d be interested to hear what the failure reason might have been. If their anything like Phonak they won’t divulge the indepth reason!!
Right from the factory, there was a constant white noise in the backgreound that the audiologist ended up calling “circuit noise”. She was eventually to rescue it some, but not eliminate it. Voices sounded “echoey” at times.
Just after I got the Cassias, I went on a long trip. When we stopped at a fast food place, I placed my order. The young cashier then said something. I had no clue what she said even after her repeating it. I then repeated my order. Apparently, she was just asking whether the order was to eat inside, or to be packaged to go. I ended up eating it inside after it was packaged to go. That was embarrassing. :eek:
I gave up on that audiologist, had a bad experience with self programming the low end technology Hearsource aids, and then decided I wanted to try a Starkey brand after I researched things on this forum.
I tried the Widex Clear440 C4-9 with open fit and found them … rather boring. The Phonak Ambra give me a lot more detail in music mode than the Widex.
Since there are many people happy with Phonak aids, they are probably very good if you have a professional who is very skilled in programming the Spice aids.
There are a lot of professionals who think they can, but they produce disastrous results. I first tried the Solana MicroP (a level lower than the Ambra) and then the Cassia (the next level down). I was hoping starting fresh with another model would give the audiologist another chance to program correctly since she would not try another brand. I was mistaken and I returned the aids.
I have nothing against Phonak, but, according to many experiences on this forum, they are difficult to program correctly.
My audi told me that hipro isn’t compatible with target and new S aids.
Is that true? i think i saw on phonak site that it’s compatible. Maybe old serial version isn’t compatible?
Yes. The good thing was that I didn’t got distortion and it only took 3 sessions to adjust the Clear440, but on the other hand I didn’t have the feeling that music came to life and was detailed enough as I have had with the Phonak Ambra MicroM.
It’s a real pity that the audi could not undo later changes on the Ambra aids and had come to a point that he didn’t want any further adjustments. So Friday I returned the as I got at the end of my trial period.
Yes. The good thing was that I didn’t got distortion and it only took 3 sessions to adjust the Clear440, but on the other hand I didn’t have the feeling that music came to life and was detailed enough as I have had with the Phonak Ambra MicroM.
It’s a real pity that the audi could not undo later changes on the Ambra aids and had come to a point that he didn’t want any further adjustments. So Friday I returned the HA as I got at the end of my trial period.
Phonak withits Spice chip have come up with something that only very few audis seem to be able to work with correctly. I tried for months to get the Phonak S Smart IX to work before I simply gave up. I am very pleased with the Clear 440s. Maybe you have a greater appreciation of music than I.
Good luck.
I suspect that being ‘caring’ is no longer enough (or even necessary?) to be an efficient hearing aid dispenser.
A knowledge of electronic design, software design, digital signal processing etc seems to be rather more important nowadays.
Prior to around 1996 the dispenser essentially provided counselling with an analogue aid thrown in as part of the package … maybe even as a placebo.
However in 2011 the digital hearing technology actually works, so the dispenser no longer needs to be a ‘people person’ but definitely must be a ‘technology person’.
There will be a transfer time period for the ‘old school’ to make way for the ‘techies’ … or to change their act and essentially retrain.
Blaming Phonak’s fitting software for being ‘too complex’ is an ‘old school’ way of looking at the new technology.
Um Bongo, myself and others who are totally happy working with PCs, acoustics, digital signal processing, wireless technology, the Web etc are the future … be afraid, very afraid!
I suspect that being ‘caring’ is no longer enough (or even necessary?) to be an efficient hearing aid dispenser.
A knowledge of electronic design, software design, digital signal processing etc seems to be rather more important nowadays.
Prior to around 1996 the dispenser essentially provided counselling with an analogue aid thrown in as part of the package … maybe even as a placebo.
However in 2011 the digital hearing technology actually works, so the dispenser no longer needs to be a ‘people person’ but definitely must be a ‘technology person’.
There will be a transfer time period for the ‘old school’ to make way for the ‘techies’ … or to change their act and essentially retrain.
Blaming Phonak’s fitting software for being ‘too complex’ is an ‘old school’ way of looking at the new technology.
Um Bongo, myself and others who are totally happy working with PCs, acoustics, digital signal processing, wireless technology, the Web etc are the future … be afraid, very afraid!
There is a reason that the field of Audiology made moves to switch to a clinical doctorate as the entry-level degree. One was definitely to accommodate the increasingly more technical level necessary to perform a lot of the tasks we do on a daily basis, one being hearing aids.
My audi told me that hipro isn’t compatible with target and new S aids.
Is that true? i think i saw on phonak site that it’s compatible. Maybe old serial version isn’t compatible?
Could someone confirm if that is true?
I have used a hi-pro box with the new software so your audiologist is wrong.
Old (and I mean old) Phonak ’s aren’t compatible with the Noah-link…but I think everything is still compatible with the Hi-Pro box.
I found the Target software very simple to use as long as I programmed my Ambra’s to a very specific and exact sequence, then there were no problems! I am no Audi or and try as I did to teach my own Audi, they could not quite grasp the nettle, simply because they were actually frightened of their PC… it proved to me yet again, of which most of us are very well aware of, this old adage comes to mind (in bold) when you need an important job done for yourself; “If you want something done right, then do it yourself!”
Program your own, if you are a fairly computer savvy person, then its like shelling peas and no one is better qualified to alter your aids than yourself as you know in an instant if it works or not…once you know your way around the software, its a doddle:D
[quote=EnglishDispenser;68351]I suspect that being ‘caring’ is no longer enough (or even necessary?) to be an efficient hearing aid dispenser.
A knowledge of electronic design, software design, digital signal processing etc seems to be rather more important nowadays.
Prior to around 1996 the dispenser essentially provided counselling with an analogue aid thrown in as part of the package … maybe even as a placebo.
However in 2011 the digital hearing technology actually works, so the dispenser no longer needs to be a ‘people person’ but definitely must be a ‘technology person’.
There will be a transfer time period for the ‘old school’ to make way for the ‘techies’ … or to change their act and essentially retrain.
Blaming Phonak’s fitting software for being ‘too complex’ is an ‘old school’ way of looking at the new technology.
Um Bongo, myself and others who are totally happy working with PCs, acoustics, digital signal processing, wireless technology, the Web etc are the future … be afraid, very afraid! :)[/quote]
Actually, my current fitter fits the “caring” description. He appears to program aids reasonably. He handles several brands, but not Phonak.
The factory settings on the Phonak aids were dfisatrous, in comparison. My was not able to improve the situation much either.
I see mentioned in another thread that Phonak made large changes in their software. Maybe they forgot to develop good guides & documentation for their dealers who use the software. Very few people like to do documentation.
run feedback manager and recalculate after each series of adjustments. Can anybody let me know which should be done first and why?
if the above does not work then try turning off sound recover. turn it back on if it does not help. if that does not work then reduce the gain on the high frequency by 2db at a time.
I do not have your answer, but the last set of Phonak aids I tried, the audiologist ran the feedback manager. They then adjusted the aids according to the chart from a real ear measurement of speech. She then expected the aids were programmed perfectly It was difficult to get her to make any more adjustments.
I suspect that being ‘caring’ is no longer enough (or even necessary?) to be an efficient hearing aid dispenser.
A knowledge of electronic design, software design, digital signal processing etc seems to be rather more important nowadays.
Prior to around 1996 the dispenser essentially provided counselling with an analogue aid thrown in as part of the package … maybe even as a placebo.
However in 2011 the digital hearing technology actually works, so the dispenser no longer needs to be a ‘people person’ but definitely must be a ‘technology person’.
There will be a transfer time period for the ‘old school’ to make way for the ‘techies’ … or to change their act and essentially retrain.
Blaming Phonak’s fitting software for being ‘too complex’ is an ‘old school’ way of looking at the new technology.
Um Bongo, myself and others who are totally happy working with PCs, acoustics, digital signal processing, wireless technology, the Web etc are the future … be afraid, very afraid!
I still think that patient care is essential though. Technological advance is all well and good, but if you leave the most important element out of the equation (the human being) you’re going to struggle.
That’s why the lack of tactility with internet purchases is an issue. Clients need to be helped through the process first and shown the benefits of the technology on their terms. Blinding them with a set of performance statistics is pretty pointless.
I still think that patient care is essential though. Technological advance is all well and good, but if you leave the most important element out of the equation (the human being) you’re going to struggle.
That’s why the lack of tactility with internet purchases is an issue. Clients need to be helped through the process first and shown the benefits of the technology on their terms. Blinding them with a set of performance statistics is pretty pointless.
Well said Um bongo!! However, to show them “the benefits of the technology on their terms” the audis must first have a fuller understanding of that technology. It is in this area that Phonak in particular has let down the audis.
As a graduate electronic engineer I can tell you that the simplest thing to do is to design something that is either difficult to manufacture or impossible to use. The art of good design is to meet both of those criteria. The second of these criteria - the usage - encompasses the audis, the indispensable link between the product design and the end user. Without this link even the cleverest design will fail.
I still think that patient care is essential though.
Of course you are perfectly correct. Without caring for my clients I wouldn’t have a business!
I was exaggerating a bit to highlight the fact that ‘caring’ by itself is no longer sufficient … you now really do need more than a superficial knowledge of the technology to be a competent hearing aid dispenser.
Scottish Highlands
Wales, UK