Oticon OPN1 are the same than any model of Bernafon

@MDB said:

What are the other options? They design another chip for the Bernafon and Sonic? Seems unlikely for such a relatively small company. I’m guessing the cost of making the chips is actually quite low. Other options: they use one of their older chips (Inium Sense perhaps) and combine it with their bluetooth chip? Perhaps they buy some generic hearing aid chip?

The William Demant holding group is hardly a relatively small company. It is a holding group owning as many as 3 independent hearing aid companies, along with god knows how many other companies they own. That’s why it’s called a holding group.

Of course everybody is guessing because they don’t work for the William Demant holding group to know the real story. But as an electrical engineer myself by trade and having been in the semiconductor and electronic design automation industry for the last 32 years, I find it very believable that the William Demant holding group would foster innovation and allow these 3 sister companies to develop their own hardware platforms to see which one would come up with the best innovative product in that industry. Otherwise, why would they keep 3 separate and independent sister companies like this if all they do is producing their models using the same platform.

The Velox platform cost over $150M in NRE (non-recurring engineering) cost. I find it very hard to believe that if they had chosen to share that platform with the Sonic Enchant and the Bernafon Zerena, that they wouldn’t have crowed about it up and down the marketing lanes to advertise that fact. Instead, the Sonic Enchant marketing reveal a distinct name for their own platform, the SoundDNA, and the Bernafon Zerena advertises that they built their new HA model based on their own “heritage” Channel platform. Note that Bernafon uses the word “heritage” here, implying that this Channel platform has been around for previous iterations of their previous models, and they continue to build the Zerena on top of it.

IC design platforms are unlike Windows OS or MacOS platforms, if you want to use that analogy and assume that the processing softwares are just like software apps on the computer. It’s really not the same bottom up approach like you think, at least for the Velox platform.

If you read the Velox white paper and the OpenSound Navigator white paper and the various OPN presentations Oticon had put on the audiologyonline.com18 website, you’ll come to an understanding that they didn’t just build an afterthought-generic platform to support any kind of software on it like you think. They started from the top down, defined what they thought was an ideal paradigm (ends up being the “open” paradigm), then defined how they could support that paradigm via a specific DSP strategy, then defined what kind of hardware platform they’d need to build with the kind of processing power sufficient to support that DSP strategy. So it’s entirely top down and that’s why the Velox platform was build entirely from scratch in order to support the specific DSP strategy they needed to support the open paradigm that they wanted.

I don’t disagree with what you are saying. It just that past history shows the lesser brands used the same hardware. Taking the hardware platform as the total standard is wrong. But, with different software, any hardware can be made to preform to the design rather than the hardware. That is especially true with aids where multiple product from the brand use different programming to determine level/features.

I’m sure you recall when Apple went to the 86 processor family the hardware could be duplicated and that brought about cheaper Apple clones. They could run either Windows or Mac O/S. Same goes for Octicon, Bernafon, Sonic, etc.

Its a minor point but it is there. I imagine a small write once prom is the only difference hardware wise.

I didn´t make myself clear, sorry.
Of course, an ambitious program like Oticon Open Sound will only run on capable hardware. So Open Sound needs the velox chip.
But what I was trying to say: You can run something completely different on that chip. Thats what Bernafon does.
By the way, in germany, Bernafon Aids are almost as expensive as oticon aids. Bernafon is cheap in the US only because of costco. Bernafon isn´t a “low budget brand” in Europe.

I have this quote in german from a hearing aid professional:

Hörgeräte Test - Hörgeräte Testsieger & Vergleich1

Hörgeräte Test & Vergleich 2023 inkl. ✓ Alles was du wissen musst ✓ Vergleichssieger, ✓ Preis-Leistungs-Sieger ▶️ Jetzt direkt lesen! ✓ Hörgeräte Testsieger

You can view it with google translate.

Regards,

Musician_72

@Musician_72 A while back I looked at Bernafon’s listing of US clinics and there were only a few. Canada does have more. I think that’s why Costco has that brand. With there being so many more in Europe, it’s become a premium price product. Perception seems to be everything concerning aids.

@Neville said:

From the Bernafon product marketting:

“Directional systems administer various patterns (e.g., omni directional, fixed directional,

adaptive directional). These options work well in a particular environment or situation but

may not be flexible enough for dynamic, real-world environments that users encounter.

Additionally, noise reduction systems are good at reducing noise but may inadvertently

reduce speech as well. In the past, these two systems worked separately, but Bernafon

now introduces DNM™ where the two systems join forces to create an optimized

listening environment. The directionality system is continuously adjusting its directional

patterns to reduce noise; therefore, noise reduction is only added when necessary.

Noise reduction is not always needed if the directional system has sufficiently improved

the SNR, meaning that with DNM™, less speech will be affected by unnecessary noise

reduction”

There’s a lot of parallel in this bit of marketing for the Zerena compared to what the Sonic Enchant offers as far as I can tell, based on everything I’ve learned about the Enchant from my past review of it. I’m fairly convinced that the Zerena and the Enchant share the same technology (even software wise).

Like everyone here, I don’t know if the three companies are sharing hardware with their latest products, but I suspect they are. All points to this- including the timing of the release and the physical appearance.

I do understand the Opn hardware is based on a very very fast chip that is needed to support demanding Oticon Opn software. There is nothing that would prevent this very very fast chip from supporting less demanding software.

Once that chip is designed the costs to all three companies could be kept down by sharing that hardware. To design new hardware to be less capable, or to take the existing chip and cripple it would add cost and serve no purpose to any of the three companies.

For Dement, Oticon is priced as their “Lexus” line, while Sonic and Bernafon are their “Toyota’s”. There is no reason Dement would want to compromise Oticon by allowing any attention be brought to any shared hardware.

@AdamsHouseCat said:

Once that chip is designed the costs to all three companies could be kept down by sharing that hardware. To design new hardware to be less capable, or to take the existing chip and cripple it would add cost and serve no purpose to any of the three companies.

While this line of thinking is plausible, I’m of the opinion that Bernafon and Sonic ALREADY developed their own hardware platforms and didn’t need the new ground breaking Velox platform in order to implement their software on.

So the rationale above saying that it’s more economical to use the same platform only holds true IF Bernafon and Sonic don’t have their own existing hardware platform yet. But I’m of the opinion that they already have their own existing hardware platform for use with their software already, and these existing hardware platform is already adequate to serve their software need for their new technologies, so there’s no need to port their software technologies on the new Velox platform developed for the OPN.

Certainly they can port it over to the Velox if they want to, but why would they do that at additional development costs if they can simply build their new HA model line on the existing hardware platform that they already have.

And the reason I suspect that they’re reusing their existing hardware platform is because I read from the Zerena marketing material that they mentioned their “legacy” Channel Free platform. Their use of the word legacy seems to imply to me that it’s based on a platform that they already had before. Not a brand new one.

And again, if either Bernafon and/or Sonic indeed use the Velox platform, there should be no reason they should avoid crowing about it on their marketing material. But they did not.

@Volusiano said:

And again, if either Bernafon and/or Sonic indeed use the Velox platform, there should be no reason they should avoid crowing about it on their marketing material. But they did not.

@AdamsHouseCat said:

…maybe Dement would be concerned it would cannibalize their Lexus sales to Toyota? Why so invested in its uniqueness?

Yeah maybe that’s whyThe bottom line is that regardless of whether they share the same hardware platform or not, the technologies they use are very different (opn vs Zerena) and that’s what matters. The fact is whether they use the same hardware platform or not doesn’t make them the same hearing aids.

If anybody think they’ll get the same functionality of the OPN by buying the Zerena because they (may) share the same hardware platform, that person would be hugely mistaken.

How often is it necessary to impart the same info? It is the way it is for all secondary brands. We all know from the literature that each brand is the very best possible solution for our hearing loss. Sadly, we can’t cram six brands into one ear canal.

One thing I can say for sure. The Sonic Enchant is a slightly but noticeable bigger HA than the Oticon OPN. I compared the size today while handing in the Enchants to get the OPN. This possibly means the OPN’s may not share much or all the internals, Chips etc.