Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62

Thread: Are Analogs Better than Digitals??

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Bethesda, MD (Washn DC)
    Posts
    895

    Wink

    First we had analog TV. Digital TV pix infinitely better.
    First records were analog....then digital discs sound much better.


    Those who praise analog sound electronics cannot prove their contention either theoretically or in real A/B comparison.
    What the analog preference is, is simply the fact that these people are liking the filtering action in analog recording technology. And some people were weaned on analog years ago and they want that same sound in their electroniic devices.

    The above assumes a high digital sampling rate. (early digitals used technology that altered the sound...not so today.) And assumes that the digital processing is correctly done. Ed

    Advice for newbies. Buy and use modern digital aids....in fact you would have a hard time finding analog aids being marketed today. Ed

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ed121 View Post
    First we had analog TV. Digital TV pix infinitely better.
    First records were analog....then digital discs sound much better.


    Those who praise analog sound electronics cannot prove their contention either theoretically or in real A/B comparison.
    What the analog preference is, is simply the fact that these people are liking the filtering action in analog recording technology. And some people were weaned on analog years ago and they want that same sound in their electroniic devices.

    The above assumes a high digital sampling rate. (early digitals used technology that altered the sound...not so today.) And assumes that the digital processing is correctly done. Ed

    Advice for newbies. Buy and use modern digital aids....in fact you would have a hard time finding analog aids being marketed today. Ed
    Ed, there are so many faults to your statement.

    First thing first, I am a firm believer that the new tech is actually better, HOWEVER, this is where that statement ends. The fitting protocols for fitting digital technology leave a lot to be desired when directly comparing to an analog hearing aid. This is purely based on how the gain and compression parameters are set in the digital aid. 9 out of 10 times, when comparing directly to an analog aid, the overall volume is softer, clarity of speech is less, spatial awareness via peripheral noises is greatly reduced, noise levels are very odd, hearing speech at your table in noise is actually harder because you are hearing the table across from you... the list goes on and on.

    Now when you have someone who is used to functioning 'normally' with their analog aids, and then you apply this digital methodology to them, the results are clearly not going to be positive. There needs to be changes made to the application of digital technology in order to overcome these issues.

    I know how to apply the digital tech in ways that will satisfy the analog users, but it took a little trial and error and legwork to get to this point.

    I think the problem for most people who don't know/understand the sound of an analog hearing aid, there is a dismissive attitude, which IMHO, is wrong, ignorant and frankly I don't think they know what they are missing.

    Cheers,
    Last edited by HearingAidHelper; 08-14-2012 at 07:58 AM.
    HearingAidHelper

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HearingAidHelper View Post
    Ed, there are so many faults to your statement.

    First thing first, I am a firm believer that the new tech is actually better, HOWEVER, this is where that statement ends. The fitting protocols for fitting digital technology leave a lot to be desired when directly comparing to an analog hearing aid. This is purely based on how the gain and compression parameters are set in the digital aid. 9 out of 10 times, when comparing directly to an analog aid, the overall volume is softer, clarity of speech is less, spatial awareness via peripheral noises is greatly reduced, noise levels are very odd, hearing speech at your table in noise is actually harder because you are hearing the table across from you... the list goes on and on.

    Now when you have someone who is used to functioning 'normally' with their analog aids, and then you apply this digital methodology to them, the results are clearly not going to be positive. There needs to be changes made to the application of digital technology in order to overcome these issues.

    I know how to apply the digital tech in ways that will satisfy the analog users, but it took a little trial and error and legwork to get to this point.

    I think the problem for most people who don't know/understand the sound of an analog hearing aid, there is a dismissive attitude, which IMHO, is wrong, ignorant and frankly I don't think they know what they are missing.

    Cheers,
    Aah, thanks Hearing Aid Helper, great response to ed121! He had me a bit rattled in his post. I don't believe he has a severe/profound loss and wearing analog aids for 40 years.

    Gee, wish I could come up to Toronto and have you help me with a set of digitals, alas, not really doable. I'll just keep looking.
    Sandra

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandra View Post
    Aah, thanks Hearing Aid Helper, great response to ed121! He had me a bit rattled in his post. I don't believe he has a severe/profound loss and wearing analog aids for 40 years.

    Gee, wish I could come up to Toronto and have you help me with a set of digitals, alas, not really doable. I'll just keep looking.
    Sandra
    No worries Sandra. Anytime you need help with your hearing aids, let me know. I will do what I can for you. Worst case, you fly out to Toronto and make a nice holiday for yourself.
    HearingAidHelper

  5. Default

    No, as much difference but these days people prefer to digital hearing aids.

  6. Default

    I have conductive hearing loss and have for 40 years. I have worn some RION HB54 aids for the past 17 years and get them repaired about every five years or so. They are analog aids but pretty bullet proof. Moisture used to ruin my aids very frequently before switching to these waterproof aids. My hearing loss is moderate to severe but with enough volume I make out speech very well.

    I am entertaining the idea of trying new digital aids to see what difference they make. What I would hope to gain is ability to sense direction of sound better, and better high frequency. I have been satisfied with the sound quality of the RION aids except for those two issues. It was suggested that I try Phonak Naida Q.

    My question to forum is what experiences do you have that would help me make decision to stay put with analog aids or try the newer digital ones. I really am not used to spending thousands of dollars on an aid and would not like repeated visits for programming as my current aids can be adjusted with a screwdriver and volume adjusted with a turn of a knob.

    Thanks for your input.

  7. Default

    HUGE YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

    I'am searching for Siemen's Meredian Hearing Aids, I've worn them the last 15-20 years, one died a month ago, and the other is on the verge of dying.....I've been suited with a don't how many digital aids, every single one returned. Just got some Oticon Hearing BTE and it's blowing the bloody hell out of the nerves in my good ear - I can only wear one hearing aid, FAR FAR FAR FAR too sensitive too noises in the other ear, it's always been disastrous whenever I wear 2 hearing aids.

    I don't think the Siemen's Motion would be good for me either, they keep telling me they don't have the parts for anaolog aids yet just go onto www.alibaba.com and search analog siemen's hearing aids and quite a few do come up. However for any audiologist in the US or Canada to HELP you choose, would be considered illegal, and if they purchased from that site they would lose their license, and I've had hearing clients get peeved off at me for knowing about the true value of analog hearing aids at alibaba dot com which are 10-13 dollars each.

    Does anybody know someone with Siemen's Mereidian Hearing aids??

    A friend the other day told me she refused the Widex and every single possible setting was bad for her (this is my scenario with all of them) and Philips on an exceptional request gave her the OLD hearing analog hearing aid she has before.

    I KNOW Siemen's still has these parts it's SO damn easy to make these old hearing aids, but they will not, and for so many of us with sensitive hearing or moderate to profound hearing loss the digital hearing aids are completely useless. Yet with the old analog hearing aids we can hear fine, but because of the change in rules and technology it's illegal for them in the business to help us still hear with analog hearing aids? How is this right?

  8. #28

    Default

    While they do sounds "different" I would say DIGITAL is better.

    The only thing I've heard analogs are better for is music.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hutto,Texas
    Posts
    1,045
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    It is all about personal needs.
    Chuck
    Navy Vet (Service Related hearing loss)
    Hidden Content
    Oticon custom ITC Alta Pro with Streamer Pro 1.3, TV connect 2, phone connect, Streamer Mic, and IPhone app
    khz 250 500 1K 1.5K 2K 3K 4K 6K 8K
    rht
    20
    35
    55
    75
    80
    70
    70
    60
    55
    lft 25 35 50 60 70 65 65 60 50

    Srt
    rht 45db
    lft 40db
    word recognition
    right 44% @90db
    left 80% @ 90db

  10. Default

    Analogs are not necessarily better for music. But digitals are sometimes hard to setup for good music sound.

    The worst problem for digital aids with music is distortion (clipping), which occurs for some (but not all) aids at about 94 dB at the input-stage of the aid. This cannot be cured by changing settings, though there are howtos in the internet that suggest dampening the mics with tape. So if live-music is important for you, check some high flutes, sopranos or similar with the aids while testing them, if they distort, donīt buy them.

    Then there are lots of features of digital aids that ruin music, especially the feedback-killer (which often results in warbling tones) and the noise reduction (which, for instance, will wipe out cymbals or any part of the music that is detected as noise). But those can be turned off, so in many cases, bad music performance is not a problem of the aid but a problem of the audi.

    The default settings are often bad: Phonak turns on feedback-protection by default in the music program (and the phonak feedback killer sounds really awful), Bernafon turns on soft-noise-management (which will make soft parts of the music disappear, also quite confusing), but apart from that, Bernafon put some thoughts into their music programs.

    So my opinion is: There are digital aids that are unsuitable for live music. And: A digital aid with bad settings will sound worse for music than an analog aid with bad settings, because the features that ruin music do not exist in analog aids.
    right 15 19 23 25 42 44 46 47 49 50
    Hz 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 6 8 10
    left 14 14 26 30 42 45 50 52 52 65

    Level of Discomfort right: 80 - 85 dB, left: 85 - 90 dB

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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