I have worn over the last half-century. The biggest jump, imho, is how modern ones amplify “by need”, i.e., in very noisy places they thankfully do not amplify at all (my Phonaks have three decibel zones for his). So, today, you never need to adjust the volume. Second, the equalizer settings are much more precice. Third, having the “speaker” inside your ear produces far better sound than the earlier hollow tubes. Four: great connectivity with Bluetooth devices, and the TV streamer. Five: I can now fine-tune my HAs myself on a PC (true, Phonak is not exactly promoting this, but this Forum tells you how to do this).
Wrong. The Senso was the 1st digital hearing aid and the Digifocus was the 2nd. Doesn’t matter whether they were or custom digital. Google it - it’s documented on Wikipedia and the Oticon web sites and others.
The first platform was the jump 1, which was 1995. By the way the link describes incorrectly,
it was really a 2 channel, 7 bands using ASA2 their fitting rationale wich was designed to
address upward spread masking. For those who had been fitting long time, I remember the old adapto with the light bulbs that was very cool
Was it superior to analog in your opinion? It took a long time for me to be convinced that that the sound quality was really superior. Not until Oticon Nera or Phonak Venture.
I used to prefer the Multifocus (the first analog, compression instrument) dubbed "automatic volume control HI) over the digifocus - if you can believe it was program via trimmer. Nera and Nera2 is a fairly recent instrument, the first good instrument in my mind was Tego pro (not even sincro) , but to me things really took off when the Epoq XW was released 2007 ? The sound was very natural
For me at least, Phonak Marvel where the first aids that I felt, where a big impact on overall clarity, and Bluetooth was an absolute game changer, prior to this, making a simple phone call was almost a non-starter… Analog just amplified everything, I used these for well over a decade, until I got a set of digital around 2002/2003, in comparison to today’s aids, they where absolute tosh, perhaps that is a biased opinion, as around that time, I was in the throws of full blown MD (Meniers Disease) when almost constant distortion was invariably the rule of thumb… Like many folks back then, with the advent of digital aids, we had high expectations, we where I believe, for the most part, sorely disappointed! Since Marvel ’s, I have had Naida Marvel SP (NHS free issue), Naida Paradise UP BTE, and now Naida Lumity UP BTE, each iteration has been a slight leap forward in overall clarity, but in comparison to my early analog aids 30 odd years ago, it is night and day… Cheers Kev
These were the first digital hearing aids I ever tried I was amazed at how well they did. The price was through the roof though I ended up going the self programming route with Phonak.
there is a video on you tube with a demo, basically two simultaneous talkers - the video shows how
the signal could be separated and “streamed” and send in two ears. This as you could suspect
takes a lot of processing - there is also mention of the improvement of speech understanding.
I think hearing aids have improved over the 14 or so years I’ve been wearing them, but it’s been incremental. As others have suggested, Bluetooth connectivity and improvements in it have been particularly helpful to me.
I’m cautious about seeing 20 - 20kHz frequency response as a big advance. MAYBE it will prove to be so. I’m reminded that going back decades (and a key part of the reason I’m here)… “the stereo equipment”… claiming 20 - 20kHz or something close to it has long been a marketing scam in audio gear. As it says in this article: Understanding Loudspeaker Frequency Response2
**A simple claim of frequency response that cites two frequency extremes unqualified by a specification (e.g., frequency response: 34 Hz - 22 kHz) is meaningless and useless. It may mean that although the speaker responds at 34 Hz–the cone moves a bit, perhaps–nothing will be audible because the speaker’s response at 34 Hz is at -30 dB and inaudible! On the other hand, if Axiom states that the M80’s frequency response is 34 Hz - 22 kHz +/-3 dB, this indicates that every tone that emerges from the M80 will be within 3 dB of any other over that entire frequency range.
I’m not going to take an hour to watch Dr. Cliff’s videos; maybe they’ve covered this issue and can get a relatively flat-line response in xMEMS.
And anyway, there isn’t much above 10- 12kHz that normal-hearing people need to hear. There are overtones in music and other sound that can give it a subtle richness. If the over-12kHz pitches suddenly started coming through loud and clear as they do for many kids, those of us that haven’t heard them for decades might complain that it sounded shrill. Brain retraining might be needed to accommodate.
Whether this new tech makes a meaningful difference for speech or even music (more likely there)… MAYBE. We’ll keep a good thought. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t as big a deal in real-world performance as some are hoping. We may not be running out to buy new aids earlier than expected.
Understanding speech in noisy environments is an essential communication skill that varies widely between individuals and is poorly understood. We show here that extended high-frequency (EHF) hearing, beyond the currently tested range of clinical ...
I think this is why certain manufacturers like Oticon have such a wide bandwidth/frequency spectrum.
I don’t know if this would come into sharper focus with this improved frequency response 20-20kHz.
I have a Cochlear Osia bone conduction hearing aid, as well as normal aids. I use the Signia RIC aids for playing guitar or listening to live music, but the Osia for everything else. The Osia is really remarkable. I only have it on my right side but it actually improves hearing on my left as well. It greatly improves my ski slope loss, making it almost normal across the spectrum. I heard all sorts of new things after I got it that I was still missing with my old . It’s very good with speech–I hear folks talking a block away. It’s good for those with conductive loss and a functioning cochlear nerve, or whatever that’[s called. so I’m hoping for even more improvements in this. I was the first adopter in Oakland, so it’s till new and on its first version.
Exactly what another person said! I should add that I hear the voices clearly but not necesarily what they’re saying. But this was the first really big thing I noticed. Childrens voices in the parking lot at a local park and then well up the trail were loud!!
I agree with Raudrive. I remember the late 1980s. I had no need for then, but my father-in-law did. Often, I could tell that he’d entered a room because of the whistling noises emitting from his hearing aids. loud enough to disturb everyone else in the room, but inaudible to him.
Fast forward to 2012 (or thereabouts), with me, aware that my own hearing was deteriorating but unwilling to be saddled with such barely useful devices. I’ve told the story here before. One of my patients had received a kidney transplant, and I now encountered him in my office rather than face to face in the dialysis center where we both could read lips. In my office, however, I was saddled with the rapidly changing “EHR” (electronic health record), which meant that I was shrouded behind two large flat screen monitors and struggling to figure out what the computer wanted next as I recorded our visit—except on one visit I suddenly realized that we were talking to EACH OTHER with dramatically less difficulty. I jumped up from behind those screens and our discussion refocused on his ReSOUND digital -equipped HAs.
You’re correct, stevemink, that a Ford Model T and a 2023 EV with a “T” on the hood will both get you to the grocery store (and in traffic, at about the same pace), but I know which one I’d choose to get me there, and I doubt that ANYONE on this forum who needs HAs would be happy to give up whatever tech they’re using now to what was prevalent 40 years ago!
Geneva, Switzerland
Scottish Highlands
Texas Hill Country
