Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Oticon More3 (vs More1) Might Be Capable Enough For Some

This topic is closed.

226 replies11.1k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
Edited

I’ve been having a bit of fun with @Volusiano for the past few days, lacing some of my posts with sarcastic references to my “pore, crippled up, dumbed down, less capable More3s”.

The origin of this latest bout of hilarity was a detailed explanation that @Volusiano gave to a new More1 user who was not getting “More” from their new devices. The bottom line was that More1, with its higher noise attenuation and number of alternative adjustment scenarios, should be more capable of providing a better user fit than More2 or More3, and should easily address the users’ hearing issues.

In reality, nothing disparaging was said about More3’s fitness for purpose or ability to provide users with an excellent experience.

At one juncture, however, reference was made to the “less capable” More3, and it is this nomenclature that I wish to address.

[NOTE: @Volusiano has already made most of the points I’ll be repeating, below. I want to put them into a specific context: that of a budget-constrained user who is offered a More3 solution versus a Tier2 solution in another brand’s product line. This is the situation I found myself in last February, and is typical of what veterans are offered by the US or the Canadian VAC.]

Until I began lurking in the shadows of this Forum, I was unaware of the fact that - for the “offered” price set by VA/VAC for hearing devices for patients - Oticon will offer only its basic, entry level technology (Tier 3, in this case), whereas the other major brands will give the veteran access to Tier 2 hearing instruments.

So … the question I had when my audiologist informed me that - if I wanted to go the More route - I’d be getting the lowest level of the new technology was:"Is Oticon’s entry level powerful enough to help me achieve a level of speech comprehension that even my old Tier 2 devices (Unitron N Moxi Fit 800s) were unable to deliver?

My audi explained exactly what @Volusiano and the other forum gurus have said to noobs like me : "Yes, some of the feature parameters offered by More1 are reduced or absent in More3, but successfully treating my specific hearing loss may not require the breadth of fitting ranges and number of “handles” that More1 provides, compared to More3s."

I’m a fairly risk averse individual in my daily life - and I’m certainly no “early adopter” of new, unproven technology!
As a result, almost as soon as I had gotten home from the audi appointment, I called him to change my devices to Opn S3s, based on the excellent reviews those devices have received, both here and elsewhere.

That’s when I started to read Oticon’s technical papers in earnest, and when I had comprehended the degree to which the performance of Polaris surpasses Velox S (Oticon’s older chipset) I realized the error of my judgement about More3s.

I came to believe that the latitude offered by More3 features and adjustment ranges would probably be sufficient to provide me excellent performance, given my hearing loss, notwithstanding the greater adjustability of More1.

This has, in fact, turned out to be the case: I hear much, much better with More3s than I ever did when I wore a Tier 2, but poorly-fitted Unitron device.

Which is what @Volusiano said … and I am lucky that the lowest entry point to More technology has proved sufficient for my hearing deficiencies, up to this point in time.

My unsolicited advice? Don’t think that - just because More3s are less powerful than More1s - that’s not to say they aren’t powerful enough to give you an excellent result.

I’m glad, now, that I went with my audiologist’s recommendation, and didn’t reject More3s based on my misunderstanding of the “paper specs”.

The old admonition is apt here: Let not the perfect become the enemy of the good!

27 people in this conversation119 min readJump to latest

I see the logic Jim… But, given the fact my hearing is kind of fundamental in my ability to function as a human being, then I am always going to opt for “Top of the Range” whether I need all those features or not is totally irrelevant as they might come in handy at some point? I am acutely aware, money constraints come into play here, but I will sacrifice things I may think I need, in order to facilitate the more challenging aspects of my loss, so I always try to buy the best aids… and 2nd or 3rd tier, doesn’t cut it for me, but each to their own priorities. Just my 2 pennies worth :wink:

A valid point @kevels55, and I can assure you that I, too, would be reaching into my own pocket for More1 or More2 devices if that’s what was required to address my hearing loss.

But that’s not necessary, since my More3s are doing the job. Of course, they may not be up to every situation in which I find myself … who knows?

My point is this: a hearing aid’s position in the technology hierarchy of that brand may not be a good predictor of the quality of results obtained by trial.

One may - on the advice of one’s audiologist - discover that even Oticon’s entry-level instruments have enough adjustment latitude to achieve excellent results depending on the user’s particular hearing loss.

To pass on More3s solely on the basis of their product positioning would have seen me forego one of the best experiences with I’ve ever had.

My post was simply aimed at pointing out that even more modest feature bundles can do wonders for a user if the devices are appropriately prescribed and skilfully fitted.

@SpudGunner said:

This has, in fact, turned out to be the case: I hear much, much better with More3s than I ever did when I wore a Tier 2, but poorly-fitted Unitron device.

This comes as no surprise. Every 5 years or so there are incremental changes, perhaps even sooner, that means that today’s mid spec device outperforms yesterdays premium device. In fact, the More is not a mid-spec device, as I am sure you know, so I would say the More 3 probably outperforms 90% of all manufacturers devices from 2 years ago. Great news.

In reply to @SpudGunner

Appreciate your reply Jim, and everyone of us are individuals who have our likes and dislikes, what you love, I might hate hearing wise! For instance, or perhaps an inclination of my nature, I have literally thousands of pounds worth of Joinery tools, some costing perhaps 4 x times the normal price of tools that will easily satisfy my requirements, if I bought cheaper, but would they stand the test of time, probably not? I just like the idea, that no mater how much I abuse my tools by perhaps pushing them occasionally to the limit, they will still perform and continue to outperform cheaper versions… I just prefer to use the best I can afford! Cheers Kev :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Edited

… except that principle may cause the budget-impaired to falsely perceive that if they accept a More3, they are somehow getting inferior goods, and that’s not the case.

So, my friend, I’m going to push back on you one last time, and - using a music instrument example - suggest that a third-from-the-top Gibson, Fender, or Taylor is probably going to give better service than a top-of-range Epiphone or Squier.

My goal is to dissuade folks from dismissing device options that are not, unequivocally, top-of-range. I was initially hesitant about More3s because I subscribed to your stated philosophy.

I would have made a big mistake by sticking to those guns, Kev.

It’s true, though, that - generally speaking - it’s probably not a bad idea to get the highest level of technology that one can afford…

Me being me, I get my aids from the and I have asked my Audiologist why only the top level in the aids that the VA issues, and was told that it gives the VA Audiologist the full range of adjustments to meet the needs of the patient and in most cases allows the aids to be useable longer as a patient’s hearing loss increases. But as someone that has a cookie bite hearing loss I have found word recognition to be a hard goal to reach.

I am like [kevels55], I go ahead and spend the money on the Tier 1 device. I have found it that this offers more growth within my hearing loss. I started in a Tier 3 aid and within 2 years before the warranty was up my hearing kept declining and the hearing aid no longer could be programmed to offer me the volume or clarity I needed and to buy hearing aids again. I have a flat loss and I am a hard fit. I just upgraded to the More 1’s, and seeing how they do from going from a OPN S1 device.

In reply to @cvkemp

@cvkemp: Boy, Chuck, do I ever wish that our VAC philosophy matched what you have just said.

VAC treats me like a rock star, however, Canada’s prioritization of military matters is very different from the United States’.

I’m extremely grateful that VAC🇨🇦gives me access to hearing instruments that I couldn’t afford on my own, even if they aren’t top-of-the-line.

In reply to @kevels55

Not only does the hearing aid companies do this but it happens in every device on the market that is controlled by firmware. A few will allow you to pay a price to enable extra features but most require you to buy the higher level devices. As someone that retired from the industry I am with you in that it is a rip off. But all of the companies say it s the research and development that cost the most and I have to agree there. I saw the time spent doing development and the labor cost is well over 99% of it for most companies.

Having owned an OPN 1 and tried out an OPN 3 for a few weeks (I wrote a review to compare them on this forum a long time ago), I would say that if it were all out-of-pocket money for me (forttunately I had insurance money to pay for my OPN 1), and the difference between the OPN 1 and the OPN 3 were a couple of grands like it was, I would have opted for the OPN 3 because it was still a very respectable hearing aids for my need and it would have saved me a significant amount of money.

But it really depends on the severity of your hearing loss. For many people, they need all the help they can get with their more severe hearing loss and the top tier will make a difference for them and the money difference would have been worth it. But for others, the third tier will do just fine.

One thing I observe so far just based on paper spec and not on personal experience, is that the gap between the More 2 and the More 3 in terms of features and capabilities seem to be much closer compared to the gap between the OPN/S 2 and OPN/S 3.

In reply to @Volusiano

@Volusiano said:

… the difference between the OPN 1 and the OPN 3 were a couple of grands like it was, I would have opted for the OPN 3 because it was still a very respectable hearing aids for my need and it would have saved me a significant amount of money.

But it really depends on the severity of your hearing loss. For many people, they need all the help they can get with their more severe hearing loss and the top tier will make a difference for them and the money difference would have been worth it. But for others, the third tier will do just fine.

@Volusiano: I agree with this (great review, BTW - I read it!) … this Tech Tier Conundrum has no general solution: it’s all contingent upon the individual.

The point that you make “… for others, the third tier will do just fine” is something that I have experienced, first-hand, and I think it’s worth trumpeting, to a certain extent, to encourage people to Do the trial!, even if the device recommended is not “the best of the best”.

If things don’t work out, you can upgrade levels or try another make.

@Volusiano has commented before that there might be a typo wrt the noise suppression of More2 (should be 8dB, not 6dB?) vs More3 (6dB).

Of course, the features offered by the range of More instruments decline in number and power as one goes down the line, however it seems to me, after reading pretty well all of Oticon’s published material on the More lineup, that Oticon is not terribly forthcoming about how much less capable More2 and More3 are than More1

The company has made it difficult for the potential user to anticipate what performance they are or aren’t going to get with each of the technology levels.

@kevels55 has already pointed out that this practice of “dumbing down” devices at the lower price points is unfair to the patients that need features, but can’t afford them, to the point of being predatory.

I still don’t know whether I agree with that stern assessment or not, but one thing strikes me: Oticon’s failure to be totally transparent about what the various levels will and won’t do for the patient adds to the already-greatly-confusing job of selecting a hearing instrument appropriate to one’s hearing deficiencies.

And that is a disservice, and a shame, IMO.

All of the companies do it, not just hearing aid brands
The difference in the More aids Is the number of adjustments that can be made in the different features. And also in the number of useable processing channels that are available. There doesn’t seem to be any missing features just the number of adjustments that are available. My Audi told me that in his way of thinking the 3 level is for mild to moderate hearing loss, the 2 is for moderate to moderately severe, and the 1 is for severe to profound, as long as not so profound. But he said it can also have deferences within those ranges due to a patient’s perceived hearing loss needs. Say someone that goes continuously from a quiet environment to a noisy environment. Or someone that is never in a noisy environment or hardly ever. Or someone always in a noisy environment.

Edited

@cvkemp: All of that may be true Chuck, but it’s not the point.

The point is that it should not have to be an audiologist who guesses what reasons are behind the reduced adjustment ranges (and More3s are, in fact, missing one or two not-too-important features, also), and for whom the different technology levels may be appropriate.

In fact, I don’t agree with your audi’s classification system equating fewer adjustments to degrees of hearing impairment: there are features and adjustments that I can do without exactly because I’m severely/profoundly compromised in some frequencies.

I don’t need more power or adjustability in those bands because my ears in those areas are basically dead.

My point was and is: I believe that manufacturers have an ethical responsibility to make it clear which features are reduced or absent at lower price points, and what impact that may have on the suitability (or unsuitability) of the devices for treating various types of hearing losses.

I don’t believe one should be at the mercy of the audiologist in order to understand what, for instance, a More2 instrument can do for me that a More3 can’t.

That is my point …

It all depends on the individual needs, likes, and wants. But I have to be honest my 11 years + with Oticon I haven’t had any of the lesser aids, and to my knowledge of what my two favorite Audiologist have said and done with many adjustments I have needed and used everything that the aids could throw at me, and I still have issues with speech understanding, and many sounds that my wife asks if I heard and have no idea what she is talking about. I am well aware that I will never hear everything again nor will I understand all speech but I still push for it. My sister says it is the way we were raised and what we were pushed to be. And that is never accept the norm. I went from share cropper’s son to rubbing elbows with President. Always, even now pushing to learn more. For me it wasn’t money or power it was knowledge that I need.

And by the way I have never thought of knowledge as being degrees, I have thought of it knowing and understanding what I needed to understand so I could be the independent sole that I have always been.

In reply to @SpudGunner

Most audiologists I’ve dealt with have said for my Mom who basically needs her aids so she can hear in her house that the most basic aids will do just fine. (Phonak Marvel P30) The issue is in many cases we’re dealing with something more akin to car dealerships and the Lexus dealer is unlikely to tell you that there’s little difference between them and a Camry.

Active discussions

What the forum has been talking about this week.