Page 19 of 46 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 454

Thread: What is it about analog sound you like best?

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EnglishDispenser View Post
    should read:



    What IS happening to this forum?

    Where are all these instant experts coming from?

    I apologise to the many 'lurkers' who visit this forum for the very low quality factor of many of the topics currently being discussed.
    I choose to ignore the rants and deal with the problem at hand. The ranting stops after I do that.

    Don't worry about the instant experts. We as the pros are here to help people in need and nothing more.
    HearingAidHelper

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HearingAidHelper View Post
    Have you been able to get this extended range with any hearing aid you have used in the past? Have you tried those two hearing aids you mentioned?

    If you have tried the Super 440, I would love to read your review about it.
    AFAIK, only the K-AMP had an extended frequency range in the pre-digital past, but it never was suitable for at least moderate or severe losses. Even now, its digital sucessor, DigiK, is not very relatively powerful in any current implementation and some users say it is nowhere comparable to the K-AMP.

    I have not tried either aid, as I'm at the super level now. It is possible that with a full shell soft mold instead of a power RITE, the fitting range could be increased. Likewise with a super power RITE. But I suspect the RITE configuration contributes a lot to the increased frequency range.

    I stand corrected in confusing 96db of dynamic range with SPL. To be clear, the peak input limitation of an aid's 16-bit (96db) ADC is what I was referring to. I see that brought up as an issue for listening to live music which can peak to 120db or more, but surely amplifying a CD's output could do likewise? I do not think the CD's output level per se is limited to 96db, just its dynamic range. The analogy I was tryng to make was between, say Metallica's Death Magnetic, with its absurd album's dynamic range compression rating of 3 (average of 3db from lowest to highest sounds) and digital WDRC (fitting to say, a 30db range of remaining hearing).

    MG
    Last edited by MachineGhost; 04-15-2012 at 02:01 AM.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EnglishDispenser View Post
    should read:



    What IS happening to this forum?

    Where are all these instant experts coming from?

    I apologise to the many 'lurkers' who visit this forum for the very low quality factor of many of the topics currently being discussed.
    Nothing is "happening" to the forum, but you're getting honest feedback from an actual analog vs digital hearing aid user, instead of a dispenser (or manufacturer) with a pecuniary financial interest.

    A rant isn't liable to be accurate or factual based, hence the warning preface.

    MG

  4. Default

    Ok I think I can chime in here. I discovered this thread a few days ago during a Google search and was surprised to see a few people with similar levels of loss with the same complaints about digital hearing aids. First off, here is the model of hearing aid I'm using, which is my most recent:

    Unitron 360e
    Super power digital 675 battery
    Has been programmed to my loss
    Filter has been taken out of the tubing
    All automatic features of hearing aid have been disabled
    Hearing aid programmed to sound more like analog
    The volume is turned up 2 notches all the time to compensate for digital compression.

    First, a background of my hearing loss. I am 32. I am totally deaf in my left ear with my right severe - profound and have used analog my whole life since I was 3 years old (when I first lost my hearing). I've only recently switched to digital at around 23. I've been using my analog hearing aid backup (a Unitron US80-PP analog) over the past several days because I need to prepare for a presentation where there will be people far away asking questions. I need my hearing aid to be able to pick up the sound information this far away. My digital is woefully inadequate for accomplishing this. Not to say it doesn't pick up that info, it does - but it doesn't pick up ENOUGH sound information for me to understand speakers that far away entirely. There is also a significant difference in sound quality between the two.

    The digital - everything is "quiet". Sounds arrive at exactly the same time, and it's difficult to perceive loudness and softness in sounds and I have often been told to "be quiet" by my parents when I speak. To me I sound like I am talking normally but to my parent(s) I'm talking way too loud with my digital. With my analog, there is no difficulty in perceiving softness to loudness. I am talking "way quieter" with it. Music is significantly better with analog. I'm able to tell pitch and tone significantly better than I could with my digital hearing aid. With the digital, due to the quiet signal, quite a bit of sound detail is missing when listening to music. In my car when I listen to music with my digital I have to turn the volume up to 50% full volume and sometimes up to 70%. There is almost no background noise. With my analog I only have to turn up the volume to the first 3 notches (way less than 25%) in order to hear everything just fine. And, I can tell the softer songs between the louder songs much easier. Since I play piano and learning how to play guitar I can tell there is a higher quality of music coming through my analog. It was not like this even with the music program on my digital. Discrimination of notes and melodies is also way easier with my analog.

    All in all digital clarity when it comes to speaking voices is great, but the compression results in a sacrifice of too much sound information when the sound information should be there to help aid in increasing discrimination in a number of other situations than just speaking. I noticed the difference at a meeting the other day at work. The phone speaker which is normally difficult to understand actually sounded like a phone speaker - with sound detail from the other voices speaking being passed through the speaker and everything - it was also louder. I had no trouble following the conversation, whereas I feel with my digital that I usually miss some things during the meeting. Another minor thing I noticed: when going from an echoey environment into a non-echoey environment there is a distinct change in atmospheric sound when walking from one environment to the other. This relatively minor environmental detail was totally absent when using my digital.

    Hopefully this helps. I will be able to add more detail as I experience more and different situations with my analog. I should mention that I have been using digital since I was around 23. I am 32.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlastedDigitals View Post
    Hopefully this helps. I will be able to add more detail as I experience more and different situations with my analog. I should mention that I have been using digital since I was around 23. I am 32.
    I think you're fortunate in that you're only severe-profound, because the recruitment issues with being solely profound appears to make linear amplification very difficult to live with (at least in my case). Have you tried a compression ratio of 1.0 (off) on all the bands?

    Since my hearing is now so poor, so far I have not noticed any major differences in fidelity between analog, digital linear amp and digital WDRC, other than the "loudness dampening" effect of the latter, which is a welcome relief. They all sound equally flat and boomy. I can not comprehend music [recorded], pitch and tonal differences, or any of the other effects you've mentioned. Live voices are about the only thing that stands out (though still distorted and more a distraction than a help). I too have noticed more atmospheric disturbance sensitivity with the digital that is really annoying.

    Re: my previous rant, I want to acknowledge that my perception of being profound now vs severe before, is not fair at all to the many technological advancements that have occured in the non-profound space.

    I saw from another forum that a wearer considers the Oticon Agil to be as "natural sounding" as the SeboTek 720, which is a pretty high bar to jump over. Can anyone in the know explain what these two expensive, high end, premium aids are doing vastly differently than the rest of the bunch?

    MG

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlastedDigitals View Post
    Ok I think I can chime in here. I discovered this thread a few days ago during a Google search and was surprised to see a few people with similar levels of loss with the same complaints about digital hearing aids. First off, here is the model of hearing aid I'm using, which is my most recent:

    Unitron 360e
    Super power digital 675 battery
    Has been programmed to my loss
    Filter has been taken out of the tubing
    All automatic features of hearing aid have been disabled
    Hearing aid programmed to sound more like analog
    The volume is turned up 2 notches all the time to compensate for digital compression.

    First, a background of my hearing loss. I am 32. I am totally deaf in my left ear with my right severe - profound and have used analog my whole life since I was 3 years old (when I first lost my hearing). I've only recently switched to digital at around 23. I've been using my analog hearing aid backup (a Unitron US80-PP analog) over the past several days because I need to prepare for a presentation where there will be people far away asking questions. I need my hearing aid to be able to pick up the sound information this far away. My digital is woefully inadequate for accomplishing this. Not to say it doesn't pick up that info, it does - but it doesn't pick up ENOUGH sound information for me to understand speakers that far away entirely. There is also a significant difference in sound quality between the two.

    The digital - everything is "quiet". Sounds arrive at exactly the same time, and it's difficult to perceive loudness and softness in sounds and I have often been told to "be quiet" by my parents when I speak. To me I sound like I am talking normally but to my parent(s) I'm talking way too loud with my digital. With my analog, there is no difficulty in perceiving softness to loudness. I am talking "way quieter" with it. Music is significantly better with analog. I'm able to tell pitch and tone significantly better than I could with my digital hearing aid. With the digital, due to the quiet signal, quite a bit of sound detail is missing when listening to music. In my car when I listen to music with my digital I have to turn the volume up to 50% full volume and sometimes up to 70%. There is almost no background noise. With my analog I only have to turn up the volume to the first 3 notches (way less than 25%) in order to hear everything just fine. And, I can tell the softer songs between the louder songs much easier. Since I play piano and learning how to play guitar I can tell there is a higher quality of music coming through my analog. It was not like this even with the music program on my digital. Discrimination of notes and melodies is also way easier with my analog.

    All in all digital clarity when it comes to speaking voices is great, but the compression results in a sacrifice of too much sound information when the sound information should be there to help aid in increasing discrimination in a number of other situations than just speaking. I noticed the difference at a meeting the other day at work. The phone speaker which is normally difficult to understand actually sounded like a phone speaker - with sound detail from the other voices speaking being passed through the speaker and everything - it was also louder. I had no trouble following the conversation, whereas I feel with my digital that I usually miss some things during the meeting. Another minor thing I noticed: when going from an echoey environment into a non-echoey environment there is a distinct change in atmospheric sound when walking from one environment to the other. This relatively minor environmental detail was totally absent when using my digital.

    Hopefully this helps. I will be able to add more detail as I experience more and different situations with my analog. I should mention that I have been using digital since I was around 23. I am 32.
    BlastedDigitals, thank you for sharing.

    I am very familiar with the Unitron 360e hearing aid. It sounds like you have them set up almost to where you need them, but they could use some tweaking.
    There are two settings that can be used in the 360's. Linear Limiting, and WDRC (wide dynamic range compression). For a loss like yours, as well as your experience with analog tech, I would always set the hearing aid up for Linear Limiting.

    Then, if I had access to your old hearing aid, I would set the 360 so that they sounded similar to your US-80PP, then work towards a potentially better sound.

    Your current settings are probably set as WDRC (this is the default setting) and so your compression settings are most likely what is causing this confusion in sound perception. More volume increases the noise levels but does little for speech perception.

    My advice to you is go have your settings changed to Linear Limiting, and adjust the overall volume to your perfered settings with respect to clarity and volume, and have a nice range through your volume control so that you can have some control. This should solve a good majority of your issues.

    I hope that helps.
    HearingAidHelper

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MachineGhost View Post
    I think you're fortunate in that you're only severe-profound, because the recruitment issues with being solely profound appears to make linear amplification very difficult to live with (at least in my case). Have you tried a compression ratio of 1.0 (off) on all the bands?

    Since my hearing is now so poor, so far I have not noticed any major differences in fidelity between analog, digital linear amp and digital WDRC, other than the "loudness dampening" effect of the latter, which is a welcome relief. They all sound equally flat and boomy. I can not comprehend music [recorded], pitch and tonal differences, or any of the other effects you've mentioned. Live voices are about the only thing that stands out (though still distorted and more a distraction than a help). I too have noticed more atmospheric disturbance sensitivity with the digital that is really annoying.

    Re: my previous rant, I want to acknowledge that my perception of being profound now vs severe before, is not fair at all to the many technological advancements that have occured in the non-profound space.

    I saw from another forum that a wearer considers the Oticon Agil to be as "natural sounding" as the SeboTek 720, which is a pretty high bar to jump over. Can anyone in the know explain what these two expensive, high end, premium aids are doing vastly differently than the rest of the bunch?

    MG
    MG, I don't know anything about the SeboTek, but the Oticon Agil line uses a linear and wdrc settings all built into one package. So you get the best possible sound quality (linear) when things are quiet to average sound levels, and then it applies compression (wdrc) as things progressively get louder to maximize comfort while still enabling audibility.

    Sadly, with your hearing loss, I don't believe you will be able to benefit from this technology in the Agil line. However something may be possible with the Oticon Chili SP7 or SP9. If you have these hearing aids tuned for your loss, you may be able to take advantage of similar technology found in the Agil's.
    HearingAidHelper

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HearingAidHelper View Post
    MG, I don't know anything about the SeboTek, but the Oticon Agil line uses a linear and wdrc settings all built into one package. So you get the best possible sound quality (linear) when things are quiet to average sound levels, and then it applies compression (wdrc) as things progressively get louder to maximize comfort while still enabling audibility.

    Sadly, with your hearing loss, I don't believe you will be able to benefit from this technology in the Agil line. However something may be possible with the Oticon Chili SP7 or SP9. If you have these hearing aids tuned for your loss, you may be able to take advantage of similar technology found in the Agil's.
    That's very interesting. If you look at the output graphs of the Sebo HD and Agil, they have a relatively flat response up until 1kHz or so. This reminds me of one of Villchur's papers where he stated the normal human ear has a flat frequency response up until the 2700Hz bump of the ear canal and that hearing aids should replicate this for a more natural sound.

    Also, I didn't notice this before, but the Sebo HD 16 is actually a 20-bit analog-to-digital conversion (120dB dynamic range) with a 32kHz sampling rate, in addition to the wide 14kHz frequency range. Not quite the sampling interval of CD's/DVD's, but it should have no peak input limiting issues. It also has 111 channels to do its mojo on. I can't imagine why anyone at the non-profound level would not choose this aid over anything else currently on the market (I have no idea of the cost).

    Sadly, even the Oticon Chili is not powerful enough. Out of everything I've researched so far, the only super/ultra power aid that stands out (hardware wise) from the pack at this time is Sonic Innovation's Endura 12 as it has a frequency range of 100-6000, similar to the Oticon Chili and Widex Super 440.

    Question: Would not setting the compression ratio to 1.0 only on <= 1kHz bands help replicate the dual linear/WDRC feature of the Agil?

    MG

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HearingAidHelper View Post
    BlastedDigitals, thank you for sharing.

    I am very familiar with the Unitron 360e hearing aid. It sounds like you have them set up almost to where you need them, but they could use some tweaking.
    There are two settings that can be used in the 360's. Linear Limiting, and WDRC (wide dynamic range compression). For a loss like yours, as well as your experience with analog tech, I would always set the hearing aid up for Linear Limiting.

    Then, if I had access to your old hearing aid, I would set the 360 so that they sounded similar to your US-80PP, then work towards a potentially better sound.

    Your current settings are probably set as WDRC (this is the default setting) and so your compression settings are most likely what is causing this confusion in sound perception. More volume increases the noise levels but does little for speech perception.

    My advice to you is go have your settings changed to Linear Limiting, and adjust the overall volume to your perfered settings with respect to clarity and volume, and have a nice range through your volume control so that you can have some control. This should solve a good majority of your issues.

    I hope that helps.

    Thank you so much HAH! Will these settings help with music? I went to karaoke using my analog HA tonight and I could tell the difference in sound quality, naturalness, and tonality immediately. I could keep on key and on pitch with the songs without issues (unless I didn't remember particular portions of the melodies). With my digital, it's worthless (even in music mode) and I find myself sounding very very bad on recordings.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlastedDigitals View Post
    Thank you so much HAH! Will these settings help with music? I went to karaoke using my analog HA tonight and I could tell the difference in sound quality, naturalness, and tonality immediately. I could keep on key and on pitch with the songs without issues (unless I didn't remember particular portions of the melodies). With my digital, it's worthless (even in music mode) and I find myself sounding very very bad on recordings.
    If done correctly, yes, it will help with music, speech, environmental sounds, proximity detection and all sorts of other hearing perception issues you are currently having with your digital hearing aids.
    HearingAidHelper

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •