Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Fortell Hearing Aids

82 replies6.8k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
Reply
Edited
@d_Wooluf said:

Go at it!

https://www.fortell.com/

Interesting. But also from different reasons. @Raudrive, @Deaf_piper, @bcarp, @ssa, @Dani, @studio.prawns_0q (sorry, I missed many users here), I have just found that when I stream the examples from this website ( OFF) to the Nucleus 8, I definitely hear differences between listening with:

  1. Music program (every 22 channels activated, no denoising features, Whisper algoritm for soft sound amplifying)

Vs.

  1. SCAN 2 program (or Work) - n of m strategy, which means usually 8-12 channels activated which have the most important signal. Here I clearly hear that a traditional anti-noise algorithm is activated and it even takes a moment to adjust automatically (-NR feature).

I didn’t realize that denoising features are activated also in streamed contents.

What is also surprising is that SNR-NR is pretty effective even compared to AI, especially in steady-state noise, as it is dedicated.

@Bimodal_user said:

I didn’t realize that denoising features are activated also in streamed contents.

For , I believe this is correct. Mapping changes between programs.

That a very interesting read.

As a bilateral user I wonder if the technology will be shared.

In reply to @SGUERREIRO

Does meeting targets mean anything other than they have adequate adjustability and adjustment for that particular patient’s need? On a different patient fitment could be more challenging. I assume the top tier aids can meet targets on many patients provided they are adjusted via and the choice of acoustic coupling is good.

@user490 said:

On a different patient fitment could be more challenging

Not necessarily, just depends on ones experience.

@user490 said:

I assume the top tier aids can meet targets on many patients provided they are adjusted via REM

Lower “tier” models can meet targets as well, doesn’t matter if it’s premium or entry models.

Right, which gets at the question about how meeting targets may not mean anything and is the bare minimum? I guess it does say that the fitting staff at Fortell are doing that task.

In the article it says that the fitting range is roughly the same as for mainstream hearing aids. So if you can be fit with an Oticon Intent or Phonak Sphere you can be fit with one of these.

“The Fortell is intended for bilateral loss, but it can be of any severity that a conventional high-end aid would work for.”

In reply to @lello58

@lello58 said:

but these new hearing aids will most likely not be suitable for severe/profound hearing loss: is this correct?

It’s probable because it’s possibly a small company, so they have to gain momentum from the broader market, as 5-10% represents profound losses.

Edited

In reply to @happymach

I was part of the study testing these . The Fortell’s were being compared to what they said were top of the line aids from another company. I think they were phonak, not sure if they were sphere. (Audiologist inserted them.)

In a sound studio with three speakers, noise coming in from the sides and voice from the front, one set of aids was much, much better. Night and day. I assume these were the Fortell’s.

Wanted to be a beta tester for them in the wild, but I am on android and these are iPhone only. (No ).

@chrisb, that seems like a flawed test setup to test the strength of the algorithm.

If noise only comes from the sides, then it’s easy to suppress, even without AI.

Directional focus has always been one of the primary mechanism to implement ‘speech in noise’.

Are you sure that’s how the speakers were set up?

@wtolkien said:

@chrisb, that seems like a flawed test setup to test the strength of the AI algorithm.

@wtolkien, please read that article:

Fortell Hearing Aids
A more recent article. Sounds kind of interesting to me now. Btw, if you want to feel inadequate, look up the the resume of one of the founders: Igor Lovchinsky.

Especially part:

Screenshot_20260121_231236_Chrome

For me, technical parameters in basics aren’t much impressive, especially in frequency range:

Screenshot_20260121_230859_Chrome

Is frequency range a limitation of the receiver, the mics, the aid, or the combination? Fortell and Virto R are two recently released aids with frequency ranges well below what is possible. What are some reasons manufacturers might make what seems this less than ideal choice?

Based on ones hearing loss, mild to moderate etc are the usual reason, but no one really needs much for speech comprehension, i always get a bit of a laugh when I read frequency ranges up to 12 or 18Hz.

In reply to @tenkan

Even if one wants to limit the functionality to speech comprehension alone, isn’t there some research that higher frequency sounds aid in comprehension? The ideal range might be the range of human hearing even if many users are not able to benefit those frequencies. Is the limitation the mic or the receiver?

@user490 said:

isn’t there some research that higher frequency sounds aid in comprehension?

It’s a fact, but really depends on ones loss for any benefit, children/younger people can hear upto 20,000Hz (hard to believe!) but it’s what gives the “clarity” but not much point past 8Hz to10Hz for most folks using , this is why a lot of brand’s don’t overhype it, most likely the receiver is a limiting factor being balanced armature, actually the microphone as well because I’m pretty sure they are limited 8/10Hz, xMEMS receiver/microphone is the way forward, been waiting a while for someone to offer better technology in this department for a while now.

Related discussions