Are Philips HearLink 9040 Oticon Real 1 the same?

The Rexton Bi-Core sold at Costco are NOT identical to the Signia Pure Charge&Go IX. Not even close. They are identical to the Pure Charge&Go AX, which were discontinued by Signia last September. They are using old technology - at least by Signia’s standards. IMO, they are still very good, but they are nit the IX which provides multi-speaker processing - and the difference is significant.

@billgem said:

A comparison of the 2 list shows at least a dozen features on the Oticon Real list for which there is no feature listed for the Philips 9040. And there are other features listed for Philips showing that they do some things differently. So, it is safe to say that the two are not identical even if some of the technologies are the same.

TBH I think the inconsistency between those comparison lists say more about the person(s) entering in the data than the data itself. There are certainly some rows missing for Philips which I know for sure do have the same features.

But also some of the difference shown - as has been discussed many times in various threads - is likely deliberate too by Demant in the way they present/market their various brands [for obfuscation].

It’s a pity the comparison tool doesn’t include Bernafon devices, which IMO are a better direct comparison to be made than Oticon to Philips.

Frustrating that Costco still isn’t offering the Reach, now more than 3 months after it was introduced. The IX technology, which is the upgrade on the Reach, was released by Signia last September, which feeds those who say that Costco sells the previous generation of technology.

@withoutwings said:

TBH I think the inconsistency between those comparison lists say more about the person(s) entering in the data than the data itself. There are certainly some rows missing for Philips which I know for sure do have the same features.

These are indisputable differences:

Real MFI = 9.2. Philips 9040 =14.0
Real offers Better Ear Priority. Philips does not
Real offers auto phone. Philips does not.
Real offers soft speech booster. Philips does not.
Real offers stereo streaming & bass boost. Philips does not.
Real offers phone adapter for landline to streaming. Philips does not.

Real offers the following amplification strategies:
MoreSound Amplifier
MoreSound Intelligence
Sound Enhancer: 3 configurations
Environment Configurations : 5 options
There is no indication that Philips offers anything comparable to these four.

If you know that these features exist on the Philips HearLink 9040, please provide us with the information.

From the information posted on the linked comparison, the best one could hope to say about the two models is that the 9040 is a defeatured version of the Real.

@tenkan said:

Yes it’s all been discussed on a number of posts, it’s the Sonic/Bernafon connection and not Oticon as originally thought when they were first released.
Funny how all this is popping up on the forum again, right now there’s Rexton, Phillips and Jabra with posts with people trying to discredit these sold at Costco as NOT rebranded models from the mainstream manufacturers…strange

I’m confused by your comment. Are you saying that Bernafon = Sonic?

With regard to Rexton, Jabra, and Philips, everyone knows that these are not the names of hearing aid manufactures, and that they are simply designations for particular product lines. The question at hand is whether they are identical to the parent company’s premium product or not.

We know, for example, that Rexton is a rebadged Signia but that it is not identical to Signia’s premium product line, which features the IX technology while the Rexton Bi-Core in Costco uses the older AX technology. In contrast, we are less certain what the Philips HearLink line is despite numerous attempts to represent it as one thing or another.

I think that we are seeing a new trend in marketing strategies. Rexton, Bernafon, and Sonic represent the old way of doing business. Theses are once independent companies which became part of a larger corporation through mergers and acquisitions. Bernafon, for example, continued for a long time to sell their own product line with its own unique approach to sound processing.

The new marketing strategy in hearing aid sales seems to be license a company name with no pretense to it being a manufacturer of the product as in the case of Philips and Sony (OTC) ot to simply create a name like Jabra out of whole cloth and leave the consumer wondering what the heck it is.

So, what’s in a name?

@billgem said:

Frustrating that Costco still isn’t offering the Reach, now more than 3 months after it was introduced.

Yeah but usually 6 months after a release, the manufacturer’s give the clinic’s a chance to add to their coffers before letting Costco go less then wholesale to the masses.
I’m hoping within weeks we’ll see something, I’m keen on some more reviews as well.

@billgem said:

I’m confused by your comment. Are you saying that Bernafon = Sonic?

It’s one or the other I’m saying, it’s not Oticon More (or) Real models.

@billgem said:

The question at hand is whether they are identical to the parent company’s premium product or not.

Exactly, and we know that it is,

@billgem said:

We know, for example, that Rexton is a rebadged Signia but that it is not identical to Signia’s premium product line, which features the IX technology while the Rexton Bi-Core in Costco uses the older AX technology

Yeah but it’s exactly the same product, so doesn’t matter that BI core is AX, Costco will get the latest sooner than later for sure.

@billgem said:

In contrast, we are less certain what the Philips HearLink line is despite numerous attempts to represent it as one thing or another.

Well what we do know is their not Oticon premium, and definitely use the same parts bin as Sonic/Bernafon, including the software, but yeah hardly matters in this case.

@billgem said:

The new marketing strategy in hearing aid sales seems to be license a company name with no pretense to it being a manufacturer of the product

Absolutely great marketing, the manufacturer’s get to double it’s sales through a wholesale account (Costco) plus the other end is the manufacturer’s are buying up as many clinic’s to try and dominate the market.

@billgem said:

So, what’s in a name?

Nothing in this regard that’s for sure, this is pure marketing at its best ; )

@billgem said:

These are indisputable differences:

I never said there aren’t any differences between Philips and “equivalent” Oticon models, hence my line at the end about Bernafon being a better direct comparison. I honestly don’t know why people keep trying to compare Philips and Oticon and then get into all sorts of muddled arguments about it!

But there are certainly gaps in the Philips info, so the differences look larger than what they are.

@billgem said:

Real MFI = 9.2. Philips 9040 =14.0
Real offers Better Ear Priority. Philips does not
Real offers auto phone. Philips does not.
Real offers soft speech booster. Philips does not.
Real offers stereo streaming & bass boost. Philips does not.
Real offers phone adapter for landline to streaming. Philips does not.

Yep you highlight some valid differences here, many to do with accessories or the smartphone app rather than the aids.

Interestingly I found an old manual for the Philips Hearlink 2 app, and it actually mentioned the user-activated SpeechBooster function in there - so at some point they must have considered it.

“Soft Sound Perception” in Genie 2 is something that apparently works in conjunction with the VAC+ rationale, and that rationale to me is the biggest “sellable” difference between Oticon and Philips/Bernafon as the proprietary rationales offered by the latter are nowhere near as good as VAC+.

Also are you sure Philips won’t stream in stereo? (I only have one aid so can’t test that out!)

@billgem said:

MoreSound Amplifier
MoreSound Intelligence
Sound Enhancer: 3 configurations
Environment Configurations : 5 options

If you know that these features exist on the Philips HearLink 9040, please provide us with the information.

No, here I’m pretty sure these are all equivalent - just renamed and reorganised in the fitting software. FYI Philips have this (not-too-detailed) help section in HearSuite on the features available:

In HearSuite I can count how many options each has. For example, “Maximum Effect” would be equivalent to “Sound Enhancer” and it does indeed have 3 options to choose from.

There definitely is Stereo Audio streaming. Are you lumping bass boost and audio music streaming as one? It dies not have Bass Boist but it does have a graphic equalizer, which not only allows a boost in lowe frequency, but adjustment both up and down on mid and high frequency. I would assert this is better.
I purchaed the Oticon and during my 30 day trial I also purchased my Phillips knowing I had 180 days to try then. I did like the Oticon, however there is no way to justify the difference in cost. I had my tests from both audiologist reviewed by a 3rd party soeech patholgist and the tests yielded the same result. While it may be the case that not audiologist are the same, im confident mine were. I returned my Oticon and was met with a demeaning attitude when I explained that there simply isnt 6000 difference. I would assert most would not be able to tell the difference at all.
I also agree that the feature lists are oncomplete more over terminology than actual features.
Furthernore, the Phillips app is far superior to the Oticon app which I still have installed.