Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Insertion gain - open or closed domes - Philips 9050s

This topic is closed.

20 replies917 viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
Edited

I have been trying to get the best outcome between 8mm open base domes and 8mm base dome double. I think the audi has mixed up the two. Can any professional audis identify each of the insertion gain A and B pdfs?

Thanks
A.pdf (99.4 KB)
B.pdf (91.9 KB)

5 people in this conversation6 min readJump to latest

In (A), the feedback curves are very different and I think that the right one is a non-open dome and the left is an open (or vented) dome. In (B), both feedback curves look similar (not double domes). The left one in (a) looks the same as the ones in (b).
What I find more interesting is that you were given a double dome considering the type of hearing loss you have. Were you explained why? (I’m very curious).

Edited

Thanks @OcramSagev for that very useful observation. I have updated my .

With my previous Specsaver aids I was trying open vs part vent domes to try to get better hearing in noise with part vent domes.

When going for my first fitting with Costco I wanted to try the same with my new Costco 9050s. So the audi was doing for both the bass dome double and open base dome. I now wonder if he ended doing this with the bass dome double on the right ha and open base dome on the left in the A pdf. I think that would explain the differences. Insertion gains on left and right from my Specsavers ha were quite similar and not like seen on A.

Edited

They are different in (A), that’s for sure.
The Specsaver open vs vented explanation makes sense.

Now why I understand why I was confused. I thought you meant the power dome when you said dome double (and I saw a different ). But after reading your comment again, I realized you meant double vent Bass dome (which is a vented dome), not the Phillips Power dome (which is also a double dome but with no vents).

Your hearing loss is similar to mine. I use OpenBass domes (which is an in-between the open and the double vent Bass dome).

Thankyou Neville. You have confirmed what I thought having looked at the firstfit curves for open and vented domes. (the Audi forgot to change the earpiece tab label)
I did try 10mm base dome double on both left and right but found the occlusion a bit much. Do you think that the 10mm just on the left ha would help?

Hard to know over the internet. But you can give it a try. It’s not uncommon to have different sized domes in each ear.

The audi did change the acoustics in the software though. I’m not sure what you mean by forgot to change the earpiece tab label.

In the Instrument acoustics section of Hearsuite I think the Audi performed with changed domes but forgot to change the dome label (earpiece tab label). This accounts for my confusion of which fitting A and B related to.

Do you mean that you think they forgot to change the acoustics in the software? The little drop down menu indicating which domes you were using? Because I can tell that they did change it. You can see that the shape of she unshaded/shaded area that indicates the available reserve gain changes. The one that is a bit higher at 500 is the double bass dome. That’s how I knew which was which. If the acoustics hadn’t been changed in the software then they would have remained the same.

In reply to @Neville

I had a similar situation when the Audi changed the domes but did not change the earpiece tag (the acoustics in the software). So both REMS showed the same available reserve gain changes but different insertion gain curves. So Neville should go by the shape of the curves in A and B to pronounce which dome related to each.

For the fitting in A, the genie software was set up for double bass domes and for B it was set up for open bass domes. If the clinician accidentally set up the acoustics backwards, that’s harder to guess, but if they did with it the gain curves LOOK like A was double bass and B was open bass.

But I’m interested in why you think would know this? It certainly talks confidently on every topic, but it makes things up all the time.

Nonsense! is right all the time. Note this brilliant response to a question I asked about oil changes: “For low-mileage vehicles, it’s generally recommended to change the oil every six months or once a year, whichever comes first.” :rofl:

I find it’s like a mid level grad student with medium knowledge but maximum confidence. It prioritizes being helpful sounding over being accurate, and if it can’t find the answer it confabulates something that sounds plausible. When I use it to summarize things I know well, I correct it all over the place, so I certainly don’t trust it to accurately tell me something I don’t know. That’s not too say it’s not accurate most of the time, but when it tells you ten things and one is wrong… How do you tell which one if you don’t already know the answer?

Those two settings appear to have different acoustics inputted into the software, however.

How mysterious. What was the process of you getting these photos? And what are you hunting for with the knowledge of which is which?

The audi has created programs for 8mm openbase dome and basedome double. He started with basedome double (as was setup) on P4.Then changed the dome to open dome and did new on P1. So he did the open dome REM with accoustic earpiece on basedome double. As you see the lf insertion gain is the same. I want to use open dome for everyday and basedome double for known noisy occasions. If I change the accoustic earpiece to openbase dome will the insertion gain be right for open dome? If I get the correct curves I can setup two seperate clients for open and . Thanks for your help.
8mm basedome double.pdf (149.8 KB)
8mm openbase dome.pdf (148.2 KB)

I think I know what you are saying.

Note that your 8mm bassdome double pfd of program 4 matches your original pdf A. That makes sense to me. Your second pdf here, 8mm openbass dome program 1 would make sense as the adjustment for an open dome with the software internal acoustic set to bassdome double if I am taking that P4 REM as accurate. That is, the adjustments are what I would expect to make to compensate for the acoustic changes going from a more closed fit to a more .

If you change the acoustics in the fitting software to openbase, as long as you don’t recalculate the settings (little switch at bottom of acoustics screen) nothing will happen and the P1 gain will still be correct for an open fit (unchanged) and the P4 curves will still be correct for the bassdome double. If you recalculate then the REM settings would be lost. Aannnnd, now I understand what pdf B is. It’s just the identical settings to pdf A but with the acoustics changed to open. Yes, nothing is actually happening. A lot of the numbers on the screen will suddenly look different and the curves will look a bit different because you have the graph set to simulated insertion gain. The software is readjusting to tell you what it expects the insertion gain is with the different acoustics. But in reality, you aren’t actually changing the on ear acoustics, the gain hasn’t changed.

Does this answer your question? Thanks for solving the mystery for me.

It might make more sense to you if you change the graph to something more static, like gain or output for a 2cc coupler.

Related discussions