Well I am new to this forum and boy its been interesting just reading what all have had to say.
I have like many a sensoneural bilateral loss and am currently fitted with the starkey destiny 800.
For me these have been good, however I am wanting to boost the power. According to my audiometrist they are running at the max of 50db gain of what I understand.
So what I am saying is my loss if around 50-60 across all frequencies and with the aids I have they have boosted my aid threshold to around 25 - 30db across all frequencies, hence I think the extreme sound like something for me to upgrade to.
what are the requirements for this do you know? is canal size an issue?
I recently purchased the Starkey 1600 destiny extreme CIC’s. I had initially decided to go for them because the Siemens Nitro’s were stupidly overpriced and I wasn’t sure if they would actually be better than the Starkey ones.
Anyway the Starkey CIC’s: At first they madly compressed so whenever there was any noise (even if it wasn’t loud) they would try to suppress that noise (even my own voice!). I could barely hear anything and quickly got sick of sound fading in & out. Also it was very unpleasant to listen to music.
The compression settings were altered and did improve, although listening to music still wasn’t as pleasant as with my predecessor hearing aids (Siemens Triano ’s).
After numerous visits to the Audi & a lot of tweaking, and after wearing the Starkey aids for a while so I could get used to them; I decided to do a direct comparison of both of my new & old aids and noticed that whenever I said words containing the letters S’s or C’s I could not hear those letters at all with the Starkey aids (but I could clearly with my old ones). It was actually affecting my speech to the point I felt I was developing a speech impediment or even a lisp!! This was the same problem throughout even after all the tweaking (where high/low frequencies had been adjusted).
As soon as I put my old Siemens ones back in I could talk normally again. Whilst I was wearing the Starkey ones I had started to feel self-conscious about talking, and in my job it is vital I am a confident speaker. For that reason alone the Starkey ones had to go.
So I’ve now returned them and got my money back. I am still trying to get my confidence back whilst talking, because I still have to pause if I am about to say a word with the letter S or C in it. I never thought a new hearing aid with apparent up to date technology could become a hindrance rather than a help. Perhaps the problem is unique to me, or maybe it is something Starkey need to address.
Think I’ll wait a while now to see if any new products come out and/or if prices drop before attempting to find another CIC. I may try the Siemens Nitro but I’ve been put off in case the same problem arises again.
Please note the above is strictly my opinion only. I am sure a lot of patients have been happy with Starkey Destiny hearing aids, but I wanted to share my experiences on an open forum.
Please note the above is strictly my opinion only. I am sure a lot of patients have been happy with Starkey Destiny hearing aids, but I wanted to share my experiences on an open forum.
You are describing a known issue with the Starkey aid. The solution is simple; they need to be programmed properly. In fact there is a new fitting formula that came out a few weeks back designed for idiot hearing professionals that can’t program aids properly.
If anyone else is having this problem, ask the hearing professional to switch to eSTAT. Then question why you are having to explain this to your ‘professional.’
Clearly, they wouldn’t be selling many of these aids if patients were unable to hear music or the letters C and S.
Not only do they have incredibly flexible compression adjustment (including the option not to compress at all), but these aids also have control over the attack and release time, and sensitivity to sudden sound changes.
Honestly it makes me embarrassed for this profession that your hearing professional couldn’t fix this simple problem. Since the 1600 was released I have a 100% success rate with them. I have NEVER had a patient return a set.
But then my original background was in computer science, and I make it a matter of professional pride to learn to program the damn things! Too bad this happened to you, because you had some great aids there.
Thank you ZCT for your constructive response. I think you have hit the nail on the head there, but as it seemed my ‘problems’ couldn’t be fixed I wanted to get my money back before the 30 days ran out. I will certainly keep this in mind in case it happens again with other ’s. Although if Starkey are aware of this issue, then I do not see why they cannot program the aids correctly prior to shipping to the Audi (they were able to program them to fit my prescription before they sent them out afterall).
In response to xbulder’s earlier reply: I do not see the logic in going from my current to a / - I’m trying to get them smaller not larger!
I got in this forum to get some info on Nitro product.
Stef, I went to amplifox branch today and they quoted me £2600 for a pair of Nitro 55. So you may well try them (Sietech, amplifon are their sister concerns).
ZCT, my top-end hearing loss is about 70 decibal with moderate loss on other frequencies. So would you think that Nitro 55/118 would be a suitable product for me? I am 32, and have been wearing a Rhapsody 400 from specsavers (equivalent to Starkey destiny 400 I guess) for a year, which is if anything a complete failure.
As it was a first ever buy so being a layman and even after numerous sittings it did nt deliver at all. Being a professional, it has made my life a living hell.
To cut long story short, I want to buy somthing that would really give me my life back.
Please let me know if you need further info to answer.
Hi there - defo shop around for prices on the nitro’s cos i heard that specsavers were going to reduce the price possibly down to £1800 a pair.
for now i’m sticking with my siemen’s triano ’s, but may consider the nitros - ONLY if the price comes down (I think i was quoted something ridiculous like £4000 from amplivox just a couple of months ago)
good luck. if you do get the nitro’s let me know how they are!!
Stef, would you please explain few +/- of your wearing. When you are in pubs or noisy environ, do these really keep up with female voice? How much they cost as such? My hearing loss is quite closer to your graph anyway.
it’s hard to give an impartial review of my ’s, especially as I’m sure they are discontinued now (i got them nearly 3 years ago). but i prefer the sound to the starkey cic’s i recently tried. I can hear very well in noisy environments but don’t bother using the ‘push button’ option (where you can change settings dependent on which environment you are in)
i would most certainly prefer ’s but for now my ’s will suffice, especially as I feel i can hear and enjoy sounds to a very high degree
having said that i would not know if there are better aids out there for me as i’ve not yet had the opportunity to experience any better ones
Westminster…interesting persepective on …they are certainly more work for the dispenser and have a much higher return rate so as a “discounter” I can see why you don’t like to fit them. On the “risk” sie of things I find your comments really left field in that I’ve never known an “incident” occuring from a properly taken CIC impression. Does this happen a lot in the UK?
With the new anti-feedback capabilitlies allowing for increased vent sizes and more power I think CICs will now become more of a valid option for people.
Sound recover is a Phonak Propietary Frequency response. I have just read an article
from Siemens in that they will have or have (not sure) and instrument where the
user will be able to control the frequency response via a remote control.
Today, most High end instruments have VC learning- Now siemens will introduce
the end user the posibility to train the instrument to have the best frequency response
based on your preference. This is plain clever…
the first HI comp who has been doing freq. comp is AVR SONO- they have not been popular at all but certainly they have master this way before phonak did int. Widex did have
something dif. call frequency transposition (I have read they they did have a lot of
conceling as most people would reject it outright)
It took phonak to make it mainstream (praise them), there are indications that siemens will have something of this sort. Soon others will probably follow, Oticon, GN, Starkey
Sound recover is a Phonak Propietary Frequency response. I have just read an article
from Siemens in that they will have or have (not sure) and instrument where the
user will be able to control the frequency response via a remote control.
Today, most High end instruments have VC learning- Now siemens will introduce
the end user the posibility to train the instrument to have the best frequency response
based on your preference. This is plain clever…
To be honest, I didn’t understand you. I am new to hearing aids and new here ,so I find it difficult to understand. Besides, I am not English Natice speaker.
I apprecaite your clarification on this. What is the benifit of sound recover and how it works?
Do you mean that only Phonak has this ?
To be honest, I didn’t understand you. I am new to hearing aids and new here ,so I find it difficult to understand. Besides, I am not English Natice speaker.
I apprecaite your clarification on this. What is the benifit of sound recover and how it works?
Do you mean that only Phonak has this ?
Don’t hearing aids other than Phonak have similar thing to Sound Recover?
How do other hearing aids deal with the need of patients ( like me) who has problems with high frequencies and want improvement in speach understanding ??
AVR Sonovation, Widex and Phonak all use an approach called Frequency Lowering. Each company simply moves high frequency information to a lower frequency-- in a different manner, however.
The rationale behind this approach is that most hearing loss is worse in higher frequencies than lower frequencies. By shifting sounds to a lower frequency most patients can more easily hear that sound.
There are some caveats to this process. For instance, shifting a sound down in frequency changes sound quality-an “S” may become an “SH”. People also use the “distance” between different frequencies as a cue for understanding, this processing changes the relationship between sounds. For these reasons people often experience an acclimatization period before they adapt to the processing.
AVR was the first company to bring this processing mainstream. They targeted severe-to-profound hearing loss and “left corner” . For some people the AVR products were very successful, for others the sound quality was intolerable. This system was very aggressive and shifted frequencies dramatically.
The current strategies take a conservative approach. Very high frequencies are shifted lower but frequencies below a certain threshold (e.g. 4,000 Hz) are left untouched.
Widex was next to re-introduce this processing with their Audibility Extender. The Audibility extender uses a frequency transposition approach. They have done a good job of routinely publishing data about the behavior and benefits of the transposition approach.
Phonak followed with Sound Recover. This is a frequency compression strategy. They have been introducing field studies and have validated the use of Sound Recover in children with a recent publication from a pediatric group in Ontario. The difference between Phonak’s application and the others on the market mostly lies in the audiograms they target. Phonak will introduce some frequency compression with thresholds as low as 60 dBHL. This means that many fittings could have some amount of frequency compression.
There isn’t an expectation that either frequency compression or transposition is a preferred option. They both reach similar goals. Currently the main difference is the fact that moderate hearing loss is being targeted by Phonak’s strategy.
I am of the opinion that this technology will become a mainstay in hearing aids. However, I think we need to do more work to understand when it should be implemented. If a patient has aidable hearing we should not be removing acoustic cues by lowering them. We should also avoid using these technologies to minimize feedback or fitting difficulties.
This is an interesting topic that will, no doubt, continue to receive attention.
AVR Sonovation, Widex and Phonak all use an approach called Frequency Lowering. Each company simply moves high frequency information to a lower frequency-- in a different manner, however.
The rationale behind this approach is that most hearing loss is worse in higher frequencies than lower frequencies. By shifting sounds to a lower frequency most patients can more easily hear that sound.
There are some caveats to this process. For instance, shifting a sound down in frequency changes sound quality-an “S” may become an “SH”. People also use the “distance” between different frequencies as a cue for understanding, this processing changes the relationship between sounds. For these reasons people often experience an acclimatization period before they adapt to the processing.
AVR was the first company to bring this processing mainstream. They targeted severe-to-profound hearing loss and “left corner” audiograms. For some people the AVR products were very successful, for others the sound quality was intolerable. This system was very aggressive and shifted frequencies dramatically.
The current strategies take a conservative approach. Very high frequencies are shifted lower but frequencies below a certain threshold (e.g. 4,000 Hz) are left untouched.
Widex was next to re-introduce this processing with their Audibility Extender. The Audibility extender uses a frequency transposition approach. They have done a good job of routinely publishing data about the behavior and benefits of the transposition approach.
Phonak followed with Sound Recover. This is a frequency compression strategy. They have been introducing field studies and have validated the use of Sound Recover in children with a recent publication from a pediatric group in Ontario. The difference between Phonak’s application and the others on the market mostly lies in the audiograms they target. Phonak will introduce some frequency compression with thresholds as low as 60 dBHL. This means that many fittings could have some amount of frequency compression.
There isn’t an expectation that either frequency compression or transposition is a preferred option. They both reach similar goals. Currently the main difference is the fact that moderate hearing loss is being targeted by Phonak’s strategy.
I am of the opinion that this technology will become a mainstay in hearing aids. However, I think we need to do more work to understand when it should be implemented. If a patient has aidable hearing we should not be removing acoustic cues by lowering them. We should also avoid using these technologies to minimize feedback or fitting difficulties.
This is an interesting topic that will, no doubt, continue to receive attention.
