Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Difference between Phonak Families (Audéo vs Naída)

This topic is closed.

10 replies5.7k viewsLast reply

Link to this topic

Hello,

Can anyone please explain what the difference would be between an Audéo and a Naída from Phonak with the same technology level?

I took some screenshots from Target, and I saw the following which makes me assume that the power levels are the same, but that surely cannot be the case, why else would there be a separate Audéo line and a Naída line?

So how do I interpret these power levels? Moreover, In Target Audéo M is marketed as intended for mild to profound hearing loss:
image

See the following screenshots with power levels:

Audéo M:

Capture-Aud%C3%A9o%20M%2090

Audéo V:

Capture-Aud%C3%A9o%20V%2090

Naída V:

Capture-Na%C3%ADda%20V%2090

4 people in this conversation3 min readJump to latest

Great question! I know the Naida is available with bigger batteries (up to 675 size) and I think there are some different features. (Perhaps related to how quickly compression happens?) Hopefully @Neville or @Um_Bongo can chime in.

The UP is the 675 version.

It carries the latest version of what was the Knowles receiver - though it might be a later derivative now, probably with Ferro-fluid damping or similar.

66 of gain is huge.

At a programming level it will essentially work the same as the other models, though there might be a consideration for better anti-feedback function. You’d usually fit it with thick-wall tubing and possibly a carved shell sillicone mould at a minimum.

If you are looking for an encased with a 312 body (you don’t mind crummy battery life) and you don’t need compatibility right away, you might as well go with the Marvel. Phonak releases their power line (Naida) later than their basic RIC line (Audeo) and the Naida often has a few extra features when it comes out. The Naida Marvel is expected to come out in late fall. If you are choosing between the Audeo Venture and the Naida Venture, go with the Naida. But off the top of my head, the Audeo Marvel includes everything that the Naida Venture had in terms of software features.

A RIC is not my favourite thing for someone with your loss.

In reply to @gsl

Because if I could fit everyone in a with a full shell soft silicone mold I would. :laughing:

Eh, not totally true, but in my experience I always have to fight with an encased receiver a little bit more. The fit is less likely to be correct right from the start and when it isn’t you are less able to modify it; feedback tends to be more of an issue. Receiver damage tends to be more common than earmold damage and then you have to send the whole shell back to the lab to be fixed rather than mostly just replacing a tube. General care and cleaning of an earmold somehow seems to be more logical for a user.

That’s why I usually order more then one earmold. If the device itself needs to be send for repairs, it’s of course something else.

In reply to @gsl

It’s the amount of oomph ( added energy) to the incoming signal - the second figure is the peak nominal output limit.

Like Neville says a decently fitted mould and tubing is usually going to trump a unit here, but you can try the alternative. Reliability wise, the canal unit is approximately 17 times more likely to fail than the tubed unit; though having spares may mitigate against the issue.

Related discussions