Comparing Oticon’s More 1 vs Intent 1

@Volusiano said:

So you said that you settled with 8 db max NNS in your P1 and SIN programs because you think 10 or 12 dB is too processed for speech to the point of making these settings less effective and even detrimental to your speech understanding.

That’s my impression, similar to when I trialed Phonak’s Lumity - noise suppression and a human voice-focused algorithm don’t necessarily imply better speech comprehension. Not to my hearing loss, at least.

@Volusiano said:

it seems like you’re saying that speech clarity is more important to you than speech understanding, meaning that if you lose that speech clarity that you expect to have, you’d rather not understand that speech at all than hear processed speech?

No, I meant speech comprehension - I understand what’s going on better with 8 dB rather than 12 dB of noise suppression. It’s hard to say for sure, though, as I don’t often go to loud places. Let me compare two SIN programs side by side, one with 8 dB and the other with 12 dB of noise suppression, for a couple of days. I’ll test them at the gym.

@Volusiano said:

But what is not clear to me is whether this claim is in the absolute sense or in the relative sense.

Good point. Let me test the two SIN programs and I’ll give you my impressions.

I have 3 Option now all the same only changes in DNN, I have put the medium situation to the easy one. (think i should change it back)

1: is the normal one with 2 and 10 dB
2: is the lowest with 0 and 8 dB
3: is the highest with 4 and 12 dB

Now I could of course compare it, but there is a problem, when everything is the same then the option 2 is best for me and 3 the worst because the 3 option has backgroud noise of wiuu wiuu, also the option 1 has this but not so bad as 3 because we have already corrected the low-frequency
that means at least for option 3 there must be a different setup in the frequency otherwise it sounds not good for me

To my friends @Volusiano and @e1405 : This thread from Sept. 2021 explains exactly how Oticon came up with the reasons for setting NNS values Oticon Neural Noise Suppression
V, remember?

Ah, thanks for the reminder, @flashb1024 . Boy, that was a long thread after I tried to reread it. And yes, that was helpful to remember what Oticon’s response was. I wish that the question about the absolute approach and the relative approach could have been asked back then as well, although I’m not so sure if the plain Oticon support level person would be able to answer this. It’s probably more of a question for Oticon engineering.

I have another brand. Phonak.
I had a massive setup improvement a week ago. Returned yesterday and had my Power Receivers replaced. Hearing better than before because I provided help declaring issues. Background noise. Insufficient Dynamic Noise Reduction. Feedback.

But I have no idea what changes were made. Yesterday I asked for copies of the Target Pro Report and User Report and left empty handed.

I have a good fitter! Finally after 2-1/2 years trying. I’ve worked with him for 9 months or so.

A pox upon those who provide good hearing aids but don’t bother to set them up properly. Or don’t know how.

Genuine respect for all that help; and specially those that help me here.

Question: Since they’re medical equipment shouldn’t everyone receive prompt and accurate setup?

@DaveL said:

Question: Since they’re medical equipment shouldn’t everyone receive prompt and accurate setup?

I think the main challenge is that an accurate setup depends on translating and understanding many subjective notions. It’s difficult to articulate what we need, and sometimes we don’t even know what we want, making it even harder for the HCP to adjust our hearing aids accordingly. On top of that, there are good and bad HCPs, as in every field.

I know. It’s time the manufacturers considered us worthy of care and training. I can only talk about Ontario Canada. FWIW Phonak Canada’s office is 2 miles away. They have never helped. My first Audi was extraordinary. I wish all care providers were as good as she was, and I praise those providers who help us here on the forum.

Finally my setup is now working with the work of Hearing Well Matters in Burlington Ontario.

I spent more than a month with the same setup in my Oticon Intents. After this period, I found some interesting data from Genie’s data logging: from July 2, 2024, to August 4, 2024, 23% of the time was classified as “simple environment,” 35% as “moderate environment,” and 42% as “complex environment.” This was surprising, as I had assumed that most of my daily routine occurred in quiet settings. I will definitely take this new information into consideration moving forward.

I also had the opportunity to thoroughly compare the Oticon Mores (my backup) with the Intents. In short, the difference is worth the upgrade. Speech comprehension is noticeably better, especially for my right ear. The P1 program is the closest I have experienced to a multifunctional program; with the Mores, I use at least three different programs. Additionally, clarity, detail, and resolution are noticeable better with the Intents.

Although these hearing aids are excellent, they are still not perfect. However, in that period I experienced fewer instances where I needed to adjust something in the Companion app to improve speech comprehension compared to the Mores. In such cases, simply tuning the volume up a bit was sufficient to enhance comprehension in more challenging situations.

Edit last paragraph to clarify text.

Thanks for sharing this, @e1405 ! I assume that you can also get the same usage logs for the More on Genie 2 as well, no? If yes, I wonder how closely the data log from the More match with the data log from the Intent. In theory, it should be closely the same. But if they’re quite different, it might lead to the question as to why the Intent classifies the environment differently → maybe now the 4D Sensors factors into the equation as well?

And speaking of the 4D Sensors, do you notice any difference in terms of whether the 4D Sensors are effective at doing what it’s designed to do compared to the More? Meaning if you notice more variability in how noise suppression is applied with the Intent compared to the More? I can’t see how one can associate something tangible with how the 4D Sensors work, though, except that in general perhaps it can give better speech quality if noise suppression is judiciously suppressed at the right moment, and give better speech clarity (at the expense of speech quality) when THAT is needed.

@Volusiano said:

I assume that you can also get the same usage logs for the More on Genie 2 as well, no?

Actually, I can’t… the Mores don’t collect this information, or at least it isn’t displayed in Genie 2. The sound equalizer and this enhanced data logging are good tools for DIYer folks.

@Volusiano said:

And speaking of the 4D Sensors, do you notice any difference in terms of whether the 4D Sensors are effective at doing what it’s designed to do compared to the More?

I noticed that the Intents form a beam in the direction I am looking, which is quite pronounced in noisy streets. I’m not sure whether this effect is due to the 4D sensors, the DSL vs5 fitting formula I started using with the Intents, or the settings for difficult situations. Wait…in hindsight, I don’t recall noticing such pronounced beam effect with the Mores… maybe it is indeed the 4D sensors in action.

Edit: Another intersting data

@cvkemp

I am so impressed! Your description sounds like you’ve found a perfect match

I’m smiling! And so grateful they’re working for you!
DaveL

@Volusiano said:

I guess what I’m trying to get at is that in that situation, you’d still rather understand speech less at 8 than understand speech more at 10 or 12 but at the expense of speech clarity? I guess the gist of the question is speech understanding vs speech clarity → it seems like you’re saying that speech clarity is more important to you than speech understanding, meaning that if you lose that speech clarity that you expect to have, you’d rather not understand that speech at all than hear processed speech

I’m now able to answer your question. After extensively testing my P1 and SIN programs, I’ve noticed that starting at 10 dB of NNS, there’s a distortion that interferes with my ability to understand vocal cues. It’s similar to what I experienced when trialing the Phonak Lumity: while the superior NNS helped isolate voices from background noise, those voices were delivered to my brain in a distorted way that was difficult to comprehend. As a result, I don’t think I’ll be using either 10 or 12 dB NNS with the Intents. In fact, my P1 program with just 6 dB NNS has consistently delivered excellent results, even in extremely noisy situations.

Here’s a screenshot of the ‘MoreSound Intelligence’ settings for my P1 program. This setup has been my favorite and, arguably, the most efficient for my mostly conductive hearing loss.

Thanks for the follow-up on this @e1405 ! I think it’s a very help observation to have. So in hindsight, it looks like the Intent 2 could have easily have worked for you just as well as the Intent 1 then?

This is not to say that it would apply to most other people as well, though. I guess it’s really up to the “brain hearing acuity” of each person as well. That’s really an intangible thing to quantify, though. I guess maybe that’s where the Audible Contrast Threshold test might come in handy to maybe quantify it a little bit better, huh?

@Volusiano said:

So in hindsight, it looks like the Intent 2 could have easily have worked for you just as well as the Intent 1 then?

Most likely! I think @flashb1024 and I belong to the “less is more” camp .