Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Philip's hearing aids

This topic is closed.

27 replies2.1k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic

I have severe hearing loss. And currently use Oticon more 1 . Rechargeable batteries.They are great. Clear sound. And the best word recognition according to a number of self test my wife and I created and administered. Tried these test on the name brand top of the line hearings aids.

I’m looking to buy a back up pair of hearing aids for the times that the more are damaged , not charged because of power failures or I’m in a location where I can’t charge them.

I tried the Oticon real. They are the same as my current hearing aids. Not any significant updates. Same chip, just a few difference that don’t really appeal to me. Not worth 6500 Canadian dollars.

On Fridays I purchased and tried the Costco Philip’s 940. They are made by the same company that make Oticon. I thought they would be worth a try.

I brought photos of my more real ear test results and settings to make things easier and recreate the same programs.

Unfortunately I was very disappointed, they don’t sound anything like my more 1 . After about an hour of trying to adjust just one program. They said I would have to rebook and take them home.

The next available appointment wasn’t until mid February. So they wanted me to take my hearing aids home, Evan thought I couldn’t hear properly, and they were continually feeding back.
I couldn’t understand what the audiologist was saying or the administration service clerk was saying at his desk when I was trying to book another appointment.

Finally I said. I’m returning these. They are not working for me. They both tried to change my mind. I stuck to my decision and returned them.

It took 4 weeks to get the appointment to fit them, and the Costco hearing centre was about 80 km away.

When I put my more 1 back I was so relieved to be able to hear and understand again.

This is just one man’s opinion but the Philip 940 are not Oticon more 1 . The sound quality, clarity, noise suppression are inferior.

I have not given up on the Costco hearing aids. I just booked another appointment for feb 18 at 11:15 to purchase the jabra hearing aids. I asked if I could buy the jabra and the Rexton at the same time. But the clerk said they only sell one brand at one time.

It will probably not get an appointment to fit the jabra until mid March. I will keep you in the loop and keep an open ear.

10 people in this conversation14 min readJump to latest

It’s well documented here on the forums that the Phillips Hearlink models are not Oticon models, more likely Sonic or Bernafon from Demant.
The Jabra are rebranded ReSound models,so quite a bit different from your Reals, but as your only buying for back ups I wouldn’t worry to much about trying to get them to sound exactly the same as your Reals.

@tenkan said:

It’s well documented here on the forums that the Phillips Hearlink models are not Oticon models, more likely Sonic or Bernafon from Demant.

The extensive help file contents on Tool and REM AutoFit are virtually word-for-word identical between Oticon’s Genie 2 and Philips’s HearSuite. I haven’t (yet) used those features, but that implies that the UIs for the features are virtually identical and that implies that the underlying implementation is virtually identical. Likewise, the help file three-paragraph Introduction to Frequency Lowering (Philips) and Speech Rescue (Oticon) are word-for-word identical except for the one instance of the feature name in each.

Yeah that’s not the same as the software, or the white papers, believe me I was convinced when they first came out, but I’m not so convinced of this now, so what we’re saying is they are not “exactly” the same but very similar because of the Demant parts bin, Oticon ,Sonic, Bernafon all use it.

In reply to @brec

In some aspects they are nearly identical, like the feedback canceller etc.
But the fitting software - genie is substantially different from Philips.

Signal processing wise, there is a very big difference how it sounds.
Genie 2024.1 is coming with it ACT, I suspect something good is on the horizon *short term

In reply to @brec

@tenkan said:

It’s well documented here on the forums that the Phillips Hearlink models are not Oticon models, more likely Sonic or Bernafon from Demant.

@brec said:

The extensive help file contents on REM Tool and REM AutoFit are virtually word-for-word identical between Oticon’s Genie 2 and Philips’s HearSuite. I haven’t (yet) used those features, but that implies that the UIs for the features are virtually identical and that implies that the underlying implementation is virtually identical. Likewise, the help file three-paragraph Introduction to Frequency Lowering (Philips) and Speech Rescue (Oticon) are word-for-word identical except for the one instance of the feature name in each.

There is the core technology, then there are peripheral technologies. The peripheral technologies are virtually the same between Oticon and Philips. Their core technologies are different.

Their core technologies are both based, but the Oticon is a implementation that breaks down and rebuild the sound scene with 2 million sound scenes trained on the DNN. The Philips AI is focused mainly on removing the noise from noisy speeches. Hundreds of thousands of noisy speech samples were used to train the Philips AI.

The peripheral technologies are the same, although they give them different names, like (but not limited to) the following:

  1. Feedback management.
  2. Sudden sound stabilization.
  3. Wind handling.
  5. Tinnitus control.
  6. processing.
  7. Spatial management.
  8. Proprietary fitting rationales.
  9. controls in the software.
  10. Built-in programs.
  11. Fitting assistant in the software
  12. Accessories: TV Adapter, Intermediary Streamer device, desk charger, portable charger, domes, molds. receivers, etc.

I would love to see (Or do myself) a teardown of a Philips 9030 and Oticon More (Or Philips 9040 and Oticon Real). It would confirm if they are the same chipsets (And therefore effectively the same). I have a hard time believing they would use different chipsets - the economics to support the manufacturing of different chips do not make sense.
If as I expect they are the same chipsets, the software/firmware maybe different giving a different implementation, but again it would be very unlikely to be significantly different.

Edited
@Gazza5982 said:

If as I expect they are the same chipsets, the software/firmware maybe different giving a different DNN implementation, but again it would be very unlikely to be significantly different.

Having the same chipsets does not equal to having the same software/firmware inside. Philips never advertise what chipset they use. Nobody in their right mind would tear down both a set of Philips and Oticon aids’ hardware to find this out. It’s beside the point for folks who own both to do this and risk their warranty by wrecking their expensive hearing aids. If I own both brands, I would simply use my hearing judgement to decide whether they sound the same or different, regardless of the implementation.

The people who are keen to want to convince themselves that the Philips aids are the same as the Oticon aids are usually potential Philips purchasers who are not happy enough that they can already get a pair of Philips aids for an already excellent value. They still want to convince themselves before they’re happy enough that their choice to go for the Phlips trumps the others’ choice to go for the Oticon aids for a lot more money. Why bother with that?

Like you said, it’s very easy to implement different core technologies inside the same chipsets (depending on how the chipsets are designed, of course). I never heard Philips boast specifically that they use the variety of AI. They simply said they use AI for noise reduction in speech in their whitepaper. They specifically call it the AI-NR (AI-Noise Reduction) in their whitepaper. That in itself is a good indication that they use a different AI implementation than Oticon already inside their cores.

On the other hand, Oticon not only mentioned that they use DNN everywhere (in marketing and whitepaper materials), they also mentioned in their whitepaper that they designed several versions of the DNN and picked the one that gives the best result for them. Again, another indication that it’s highly likely and easy to have the same chipsets but different core technologies inside of them embedded inside the software/firmware. That makes the commonality of the chipsets used really irrelevant in terms of whether they’re the same hearing aids or not.

i wouldn’t be surprised, although it’s purely speculation on my part here, that Oticon developed a pretty good AI for noise reduction in speech first, then tried the DNN route next, and settled on the DNN for the Oticon brand. But because their AI-NR is a very viable first option, they decided to license this to Philips to put in the 90x0 hearing aids. That way, they don’t waste the R&D money they put into the AI-NR technology, yet still keep a big enough difference between the two brands to avoid sales of the cheaper brand cannibalize sales of the more expensive brand. And they get Philips’ help to reach out to an even wider share of the market as well.

Whether the Philips AI-NR and the Oticon DNN are significantly different enough or not in terms of performance, users will get to be the judge of that.

@Tony3 said:

I’m looking to buy a back up pair of hearing aids for the times that the more are damaged , not charged because of power failures or I’m in a location where I can’t charge them.

I’m not sure that the second and third points of your expected use case will be satisfied with backup rechargeable . If you sporadically use the BU HAs, you will likely need to charge them before use, so in a power out/unavailable setting, they would not be the ideal situation.

My thoughts:

  1. Are you really expecting power to be out for more days than your charger’s battery can charge the HAs? In my Starkey’s, that is 3 full charges, not sure what yours will do.

  2. Not sure what your experience is, but I have been wearing HAs since 2014 and have never needed a backup HA.

  3. Most people get back up HAs naturally when they replace their HAs with a newer model. This is far more cost effective, but may be years in the future.

  4. If you really need a BU set, it seems that for your use case, a used set that runs on replaceable batteries would be a better fit.

  5. Given your concern with reliable power, a cheaper, and more versatile, approach might be a power station like a Jackery or similar. This can not only charge your HAs, but also your phone, laptop, etc.

I go canoeing and wilderness camping. Often for two or three weeks. The rechargeable batteries won’t work in these situations.

There have been several times where I had to send more1. For repairs. First time I had to wait 2 weeks, the second time the wait was three weeks.

Yes the 9040 I tried were disposable batteries

Given your experience and use case, I agree that rechargeable are not ideal. Between my wife and I, we have had 10 Starkey HAs since 2014. None of our HAs have had to go in for repairs. They were simply upgraded. If I were repeatedly sending my HAs in fir repairs, I would switch brands.

Because rechargeable HAs don’t really work for your use case, it may make the more sense to upgrade to a top tier replaceable battery operated HA and sell your rechargeables.

I tried to try a pair of starkey, unfortunately in Canada they don’t have any demo pairs. In order to try them you have to purchase them. I called around many places and I even called starkey Canada. This is their policy. I don’t have 7000 dollars to tie up for 3 months.

That’s just nitpicking. They are features listed in the marketing brochures in the same vein as the other items, so I lump everything that is not core technology into the peripheral technology bucket. But if you want to call them something else, feel free to do so.

processing and spatial management are very basic elementary features that virtually almost all major hearing aid brands/models have. Because they’re so basic, and it’s almost certain that the Philips aids, as a major brand tied to William Demant, would be sorely remissed not to have. And it’s also HIGHLY UNLIKELY that these 2 technologies are not shared between Philips and Oticon, because there’s nothing special about them that they would have to be developed separately. They would take what is already available for Oticon and put it on the Philips aids.

In reply to @Volusiano

Of course, Demant and Philips might have agreed that Philips could not use the feature in their sales and marketing even though it’s in the mushware of both.

IMO, both Oticon and Philips buyers have skin in the same-or-different game. The rest of us are just curious. As a Jabra user, I’m happy to know that my 10s are either identical or extremely close to Omnia 9s. I’d be interested in knowing if that’s true for Philips and Oticon for my next purchase - but I’d like conclusive facts, not speculation.

IIRC, one HT member recently bought 9040s as backup for his Oticons and found them to sound different. That’s a meaningful fact, IMO. Identical fitting software is another meaningful fact. As to the question of same or different, though, I’m keeping an open mind.

I doubt that we’ll ever get much of an objective, measurable comparison of DNN and -NR because the variables are so numerous and because the process of choosing is so subjective. As always in the buying experience, each user needs to decide what brand(s) to sample and then decide whether the result is good enough to stay with or to keep looking and listening.

Hi brother, I had both hearing aids on , in the same environment. With the same real ear measurement settings. They are nowhere near alike. They sound totally different.

In reply to @Tony3

@Tony3 said:

Hi brother, I had both hearing aids on , in the same environment. With the same real ear measurement settings. They are nowhere near alike. They sound totally different.

What do you mean by settings? Were they both programmed then each had REM run or something else?

This is really not the right way to do . Each hearing aid, even within the same brand with the same model, may perform differently and give you different pre-adjusted REM results. The right way to do it is to have the Costco to perform REM specifically on the Philips aids, not copy the REM adjusted gain curves from the More and impose it on the Philips and skip doing REM on the Philips.

Also, while speaking of REM, if the Oticon HCP uses a different target fitting rationale than the Costco HCP uses, then they will sound different. One will sound like the fitting rationale REM was adjusted to, while the other will sound like the other fitting rationale used. So unless both told you what fitting rationale they use to based the REM adjustment on, and it happens to be the same, then you can safely do A to B comparison to see if the sound alike or not. Nevertheless, even if both use the same fitting rationale for REM, REM would have to be done separately for both. Copying the REM adjusted gain of one over to the other is not the right way to set the other up.

Active discussions

What the forum has been talking about this week.