When a disaster arrives, I will be deaf within a few days without a recharging option.Batteries i can buy in multitude and take with me wherever I go.
Not sure what magnitude of disaster you are thinking about, but if there is no mains electricity for days or weeks, it will be dire indeed. For rechargeable hearing aids, type “usb solar charger” into your search field and see what the options are. Or get a hand-cranked one if you want to: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B018I4BPNU7 Sure you can get petrol-powered ones or woodgas-powered ones as well…
Realistically, if you are worried, I’d get a small combo-device with solar cells and a hand crank.
There does seem to be some indication that the industry prefers rechargeables for feature-driven reasons, and I suppose one could say that’s profit-driven. But overall it’s simply market reality.
Yep, likely that on both accounts. I am truly the last of a dying breed who still prefers the battery options due to so many trips taken where rechargeables wouldn’t be feasible. I’m also lucky to still have the eyesight and dexterity to manage these battery swaps BLINDFOLD.
I am truly the last of a dying breed who still prefers the battery options
No your not alone, your one of many of us who know that “if it isn’t broken then don’t fix it” crowd, as much as the manufacturers like to push them, they at least still offer something, all they need to do is offer a truce, offer models that only need “recharging” once a week and I’ll be happy to use them.
offer models that only need “recharging” once a week and I’ll be happy to use them.
SAYS IT ALL! I’m with you 100% here. It just hasn’t happened yet.
Oh. And my other criteria is COLOR! Too many hearing aids are in boring BMW shades. Not all of us want to drive an understated car. Nor do we want to wear hearing aids (or “beans” as I prefer to call them) in boring shades of silver, gold, champagne, taupe, pewter, gray….
It’s an older streaming technology. Streaming before streaming. If you get a compatible landline phone (most accessible landline phone have it) and your clinician gives you a telecoil program, then you can flip into that program and calls will go right into your hearing aids for better clarity. You do have to hold the phone in the right spot next to your hearing aid, it’s not hands free. But the call clarity is better.
But if you did well with your hearing aids on the phone prior to them breaking, you may not need it.
Looks like I’m stuck. I couldn’t understand speech over the phone even with my old aids, so I hope when I get new ones, after my testing appointment in November, they’ll do better. Unfortunately I can’t buy a new landline set-up. I have a phone with four handsets in different rooms so I don’t have far to wheel my chair if the phone rings (these days I don’t answer anyway), and can’t afford to buy a new phone to replace it. I’ve gone without hearing aids for almost a year now for lack of money, but a relative is giving me enough to buy at least one aid, possibly for both ears if discounts like CARP bring the price down. But there’s no money left from my OAS/GIS each month after the basic bills are paid, so if the new aids still don’t work with the current phone, I’ll be looking into Telus’ teletype service or whatever version they have now. But thanks for the tip about . I’ve added a note to my growing list of things to ask at my first appointment.
I’m quite new here. Do you think that if you or anyone would like to post about Signia or Bernafron or Widex or Siemens, your post would be deleted? Hope not..
Many seem to prefer rechargeable hearing aids. Reasons for this are:
No stumbling with replacing batteries,
Less options because manufacturers offer less models with both options, battery AND rechargeable
The opinion that rechargeables give better energy, needed for more advanced aids, than batteries.
(But others argue that this is not true; batteries can also energise the needs of advanced hearing aids. Someone argued that the same advanced hearing aid is available in both options (rechargeable and battery fuelled. So I’m not convinced that batteries are not sufficient for more advanced hearing aids. Does anyone has references to prove that batteries are not sufficient for more advanced aids (or to prove the opposite?) )
It seems that people who never experienced battery fuelled aids tend to choose rechargebles maybe because this is felt as a more modern option.
Aids without batteries can be manufactured smaller.
There is also a group that defintely prefers battery fuelled aids. These are mentioned reasons pro battery fuelled aids:
Not dependent of a (trademark dependent) charging unit - which is quite expensive to buy when lost or broken
Not dependent of a charging unit,
which is helpfull for active people who use the aids lot of hours at home and at work etc
which is helpfull for outdoor or emergency situations > flexibility of replacing batteries anywhere (plug and play), compared with having to load the aids or carrying things like powerbanks atc.
A box with batteries takes almost no space compared with a much larger rechargeable unit and optional powerbank
trademarks can force the HA battery manufactures to produce the batteries even more efficient/durable so the durablility could even become better
Aids with batteries (especially the 675’s) have days if not weeks longer working time compared with a fully charged aid.
Correct me or add if this is not correct or important points or views ar missed
My statement is:
Manufacturers of power hearing aids, please remind that users of power hearing aids, who have already quite a few options to choose, are disadvantaged when you decide for them that they HAVE to use rechargebla hearing aids. Remind that active people, people in outdoor situations, people who are less organised will experience HUGE PROBLEMS by using rechargeble hearing aids Please take care of ALL your potential cliënts and not only them that are well organised and use their aids less hours a day. Please, provide for every power aid that you develop the same options for battery lovers AND for rechargeable lovers!!!
Thank you!
Would it be a good idea to send a request like this to all hearing aid factories?
It yes, how to do this?
If you ‘d like more other opinions maybe tell more people about this forum..?
Do you have experience with Starkey and have you compared Starkey with other trademarks? Why should one choose Starkey?
The fact is that the small replaceable batteries are zinc/air technology and have a very limited power capacity.
Rechargeable batteries use lithium and have a much higher power capacity.
There is a huge amount of electronics packed into a modern hearing aid, especially the ones that use a form of . You will never get those working with zinc/air batteries. So there is no point in asking for it.
There is a huge amount of electronics packed into a modern hearing aid, especially the ones that use a form of AI. You will never get those working with zinc/air batteries.
I don’t think anyone posting here knows whether it could be made to work. The availability of higher power rechargeable batteries, and a widespread dislike for changing disposable batteries, have made it unnecessary to try.
But a rechargeable hearing aid, even if such is the customer’s preference, is no longer the long-term investment that a hearing aid used to be, because the battery, which generally isn’t field-replaceable, can be expected to deteriorate on account of its chemistry. Same price, or more, but becomes junk sooner. We’ve discussed this in the past, but not recently, so it bears repeating.
I don’t think anyone posting here knows whether it could be made to work.
I think you aren’t correct about that. Just because people are posting on this sort of forum doesn’t mean they aren’t knowledgeable professionally about such things. I for one do know that it couldn’t be made to work and I bet I’m not the only one. It’s just physics dear boy.
But a rechargeable hearing aid, even if such is the customer’s preference, is no longer the long-term investment that a hearing aid used to be, because the battery, which generally isn’t field-replaceable, can be expected to deteriorate on account of its chemistry. Same price, or more, but becomes junk sooner. We’ve discussed this in the past, but not recently, so it bears repeating.
It also bears repeating that in most cases the provider will send the rechargeable aids in for service prior to warranty expiry, so the user should expect long term performance.
So if the rechargeable batteries in both the Jabra 20 and Jabra 30 are rated for (only) “up to 30 hours” of “normal use”, why are they considered much more powerful that conventional batteries?
Ratings for the conventional batteries in the Jabra 20s (not sure about the 30s) are “about a week”. Mine, with #13 batteries, will go considerably longer than that.
Also, how many days will the rechargeable batteries in the Jabra 30s actually last, assuming Hear in Noise (no ) is not used? I think I’ll just manually turn mine off tonight instead of charging as a test.
The point is that zinc/air batteries deliver only a very low current. A milliamp or so. It’s very challenging to get complex digital electronics to operate on a low voltage of a volt or so and only one milliamp.
Lithium batteries can deliver much higher voltages and currents in a small form factor, so type features become feasible.
If you look at the Resound Vivia (aka Jabra EP30), the most advanced technically is only available in rechargeable form and that particular model is the smallest of the Vivia versions too.
Albuquerque, NM
Netherlands
