Resound Omnia vs Phonak Lumity

Agree. Or just scroll by.

@Euang said:

Both Phonaks BT classic format and and BT LE can co-exist on the same module.

I hope you understand Bluetooth LE and Bluetooth LE Audio are two different things.
Terminology is important about this, it is confusing enough without terminology errors.

Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth LE are and have been in Phonak aids for a number of years.

At least this is my understanding.

Agreed @Euang… I have the feeling something is in the wind, Phonak likes to lead from the front, breakthrough innovation is part of their mantra, staying ahead of their competitors, and remaining number 1… LE Bluetooth, aka Auracast, could possibly be their next big thing… Time will tell Yeah @Raudrive, I believe its Auracast as stated in user170’s post… Cheers Kev

It will be beyond stupid if they don’t support LE Audio in the next generation of SWORD chip dubbed SWORD 4.0… I imagine they are working on it right now.

@JordanK said:

With Lumity, the environment comes alive

Hi all, I had a Costco Jabra Pro 10 for a month or so but am not quite happy with the setup. I went for a fine tune about two weeks ago and told the audi I didn’t get the lower frequencies for streaming and if he can boost them but he was adamant there was no option to do so.
I now have downloaded the SmartFit SW and also got myself a Noahlink W device. It appears that the Jabra Pro 10 gain plan can definitely be set individually for each program, e.g. boost the lower frequencies in the Streaming program. My brother who has a Phonak P30 on the other hand is quite happy with the streaming and also Jordan’s comment on airiness caught my attention. For those who had been HiFi enthusiast in their better days would know that a Subwoofer operating below 100Hz actually adds airiness to the music. So I thought I would compare the Phonak and Resound fitting formulae.
I have downloaded both the SmartFit and Phonak SW and entered my audiogram on both and set them to Jabra Pro 10 (~=Omnia 9) and Phonak Lumity 90. Ocluded mold on the right ear and a Power dome on the left. What I found is that fitting with NAL-NL2 formula produces quite different graphs for the two. I used the 65dB input for the comparisons.
Phonak has a lot flatter curve giving it a boost in lower frequencies, which I think will give it an airier feel for normal HA operation. Resound on the other hand has a big boost on the high frequencies which makes it very harsh I believe. Although that harshness might make it better with following speech.

Hope this helps some of you. And also would appreciate any and all comments to improve my understanding.

Nice work! I did something similar, comparing the Phonak Lumity prescription targets to my Oticon More 1. I ended up “stealing” the Phonak music program, which sounds much better than the Oticon MyMusic…

Interesting comparison!
I would also have expected both curves to be about the same. If both were generated with NAL-NL2. Maybe the differences come from the different weighting of the acoustics (domes, molds, venting)?
Another thought: I found the high frequencies far too accentuated in the P90s with NA-NL2. The proprietary Adaptive Phonak Digital 2.0 is much more natural. The reason was also clearly evident when comparing the gain curves. Presumably, @JordanK also uses the proprietary Phonak formula.
A comparison with this would certainly be interesting.
And last but not least: Why don’t you just increase the lower frequencies of your Jabras for the streaming program? That’s what I did with mine, with good success.

@e1405 said:

Phonak music program

IGood idea, I will probably do something similar.

@sterei said:

proprietary Phonak formula

I have run the recommended formulae for both manufacturers, i.e. Jabra Audiogram+ vs Phonak Digital 2.

Still, the Phonak comes warmer compared to the Jabra which has more higher frequency boost.

@sterei said:

Why don’t you just increase the lower frequencies of your Jabras

I hopefully will do that once I figure out how to settle it with my Audi at Costco as I don’t think he is the type that will look kindly to my tinkering. They are still in the 90 day return period and I will first get an appointment and ask him to do it.

@Levo said:

I will first get an appointment and ask him to do it

I understand. Now you can explain to him very well how it has to be done!
Sooner or later you will surely do it yourself.

@JordanK ohhhh i thought you were calibrated to NAL-NL2, but you’re actually on DSL huh? Interesting. Were both your Omnia and Lumity calibrated to DSL when you did the comparison?

@SpudGunner said:

My question is this - what is your perception of the difference between the two rationales? (I’m trying to figure out whether it’s my prior recollection or my hearing that has changed …)

Hi @SpudGunner

My understanding (someone please correct me if I mixed this up) is that the DSL v5.0 is sound level target that is used during the REM testing process. A series of speaking samples is played on a large speaker while small tubes are inserted in your ears near the eardrum with the hearing aids in use. The actual sound levels at the eardrum are then measured and captured on the computer screen and compared against the DSL v5.0 target. The audiologist then tweaks the sound levels across different frequency ranges to try and get the output of your hearing aids to match the target line on the graph. This is then repeated a bunch of times for soft, medium and loud volume levels.

As many have mentioned, there are a number of alternatives to DSL v5.0. I think DSL was developed in Canada and seems to be favoured by Canadian audiologists who were trained using DSL. My audiologist uses DSL (I live in Toronto) and he feels that he gets better results and higher client satisfaction with DSL v5.0 vs other targets. I’m not sure of the differences but then again, I’ve been going to the same audiologist for 22+ years so I am not sure if I have been fitted against anything else other than DSL. When I was fitted with Lumity, my audiologist did mention that he was quite surprised (and delighted) by how close the new Phonak initial fit ended up being to the targets he was aiming for via the REM test. He only had to tweak a bit to get a really close match and I’ve been incredibly happy with the results I am getting from Lumity.

Hope I got this correct. I’m just a long term user and not an audiologist.

Jordan

@JordanK : Jordan, thanks for the reply: for the record, my DSL was properly fitted using REM. My understanding was that DSL V.5 (adult) would provide more gain the higher the frequency. Its design rationale was to maximize audibility, and not comprehension. (… or something like that)

My question can be paraphrased like this - do you find DSL sharper-sounding than VAC+, or softer (more muted)?

@MDB said:

there will still be a lot of Classic BT devices that Phonak would work with

As long as their charge lasts the day. They have much shorter runtime than their competitors. I did not even consider them because of that.

I don’t mean to restart another flame war regarding Phonak rechargeables, but it’s just not that big a deal for the majority of people (as evidenced by great Phonak sales numbers) If one’s hearing aids are “mission critical” and it’s too disruptive to one’s busy day to do a brief recharge, one really ought to consider having back up aids (disposable batteries) that one carries with one all the time. Phonak is not trying to please “everybody all the time,” they are trying to please “most of the people most of the time” and it seems like they’ve been pretty successful at it. This forum is not representative of the overall community of hearing aid users.