Bluetooth version in hearing aids

@anon33641277 said:

I would prefer any other device with Bluetooth 5.3 to Phonak, for future compatibility

I wouldn’t assume that BT 5.2/5.3 in a device gives you an upgrade path to LE Audio.

@tenkan said:

Yes plus LE Audio will be backwards compatible with some devices

Would people be able to keep their older Bluetooth hearing aids as spares and still be able to connect via Bluetooth?

I’m also not a fan of updating my iPhone when the next one comes out. I’m in rural Wales at the moment and have massively enjoyed not been able to use my iPhone most of the time.

I’ll update hearing aids all the time but I’ll get my iPhone to last as long as possible.

Despite how appealing the idea is, my experience is that trying to make a purchase “future proof” seldom works out. I do best if I concentrate on buying something that does a good job of meeting my current needs. If it happens to have some neat features that I don’t need, so much the better but I don’t think they’re worth sacrificing something you will actually use now for.

I know what you’re saying. Some people get around that issue by buying a new car, or a new phone, every time a new model comes out. Others will keep their phone or car for years, and be happy with it.

Technology is advancing faster than ever right now. I think anyone would feel compelled to “future proof” a purchase of this magnitude if at all possible. Look at electric cars - I found out that buying one a few years ago was a really bad idea - it barely went 100 miles on a charge, and was next to worthless on trade-in. Now they’re talking about having solid state batteries that will last over 700 miles within a year or two. Sure, it’s a different scenario, but not entirely.

At least for cars - and now phones - there are trade-in programs. I haven’t seen anything like that for hearing aids, and I’m guessing it would be a tough sell. Are there any?

As far as meeting my current needs, though, both Signia and Phonak have been pretty weak. Maybe it’s just a matter of my brain getting used to them, as I always hear. But the sound from either is just not very good (tinny, at best), and it often seems like the background noise is what’s most amplified. I know it’ll take some adjustments. In the meantime, I guess I’m focusing on objective qualities such as Bluetooth.

Well it’s a good question, I can’t see why not, one would like to think so, my guess is later models yes, but the older stuff will be phased out and unsupported over time like everything else.

It’s fine to choose any characteristic to choose a hearing aid as they can all be adjusted to sound pretty much the same. You want a pink one and only one manufacturer makes it, fine. Tinny sound quality is either a result of venting or adjustment. It’s not a quality of the aids. The next big thing in Bluetooth is LE Audio and Auracast. Even if an aid is certified BT 5.3, it’s no guarantee that it meet those other specs. A possibility yes, but no guarantee.

It’s not just a matter of the BT version used by the HAs - the version used by your phone is also key. When I was tossing up between Phonak and Oticon when I upgraded my HAs 2.5 years ago, I went with Phonak and its Classic Bluetooth rather than Oticon and its Bluetooth LE because it meant that I didn’t also need to upgrade my phone to one that supported BT LE.

@rjsmeyer

Are you using domes or moulds?

Streaming can be tinny with domes, as the bass frequencies escape from your ear canal

Peter

Very curious to hear more about your experience with the Orka 2, as I see nobody else has mentioned them here. On paper, I can see why you were interested in trying them.

On Friday I had a remote session with a highly competent Au.D. She re-tuned my Orka 2 HAs to be much closer to my audiogram, which I had previously submitted over the net as part of the registration procedure in the app. All aspects of the performance were pretty darn good, except that the incoming streaming of phone calls was too faint to make out. However, my outgoing chatter was apparently very well received (a prior trial with my spouse produced similar results). I switched to a mid-size set of double domes, and the incoming music streaming was of almost acceptable volume. But, the phone stream had not improved. Today I received a text from the audi saying that the techies were working on the issue, please stand by. So, at the very least, they have attentive staff with great customer response. Another thing that I cleared up was that indeed these are meant for mildly severe hearing loss. Somewhere in the weeds of their online presence they used the FDA “mild to moderate” qualifier. The audi said that she would get that corrected. The charging case is absolutely first class; in addition to USB-C (wall wart and cable included) it works with a wireless charging pad just like ear buds, and it has a button to initiate pairing. But, once paired with my iPhone and iMac, they stay paired. Bluetooth works well–at least 15 feet, or more, range, and it’s clear as a bell. The “Noise” mode, selected on the app, cuts down very noticeably on ambient noise and focuses listening on the person opposite. Downsides: the unacceptable incoming phone streaming and only 11-hour run time (though the case stores enough energy for two “refills”). If they can fix the former and send out firmware updates, they will have a real contender to offer. It won’t beat my Lumity, nor maybe even the similarly priced brand name HAs at Costco, but it would surely be worth considering.

The mix of claims they make is interesting. General purpose hardware that’s cheaper and “faster” would typically be expected to be larger, consume more energy, or have other drawbacks. Or maybe it’s “faster” in a technical sense but has to spend so many more cycles running complex code not necessary with an application-specific chip which implements more HA-specific features in silicon that it comes out about equal. As with other brands that promise a similar approach, I guess time will tell. The real ticket would indeed be an HA brand that truly does continually release improved firmware rather than reserving advancements for new models, but it’s difficult to see that business model working without an ongoing subscription. Sticking to the topic of this thread, though, if they can nail modern Bluetooth that will at least be a significant accomplishment.

They might be more energy efficient than one would think. If they are using general purpose chips, they’re likely a much smaller process size. (I think Phonak currently uses the smallest at 28 nm, whereas general purpose is down in the 3-7 nm range) If everything’s done with software though, I’d expect it to be glitchy. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Very good point. It would be interesting to find out exactly which silicon they’re using.

Couldn’t find process size, but did find that battery life is low (12 hrs)