Did you try the MoreSound Booster feature that’s available in the ON app (or now replaced by the Companion app)? Did that help or not? If not, did it even sound different?
Did you have your HCP turn up the Neural Noise Suppression value in the MoreSound Intelligence setting to the max value, especially in the Difficult Environment?
Did you have your HCP add a program with maxed out Neural Noise Suppression AND Full Directional value in the Directionality Setting? This would be kind of the equivalent of both of the above and should help give you more boost of speech in the front.
You should post your audiogram in your profile so it’s more clear what kind of hearing loss you have. Just saying you have mid and high hearing loss is still too sketchy without enough details. With your audiogram, then it may be more clear whether the Speech Rescue feature would be helpful for your hearing loss or not. Did you have your HCP enable Speech Rescue for you? If yes, what are the settings in there?
MoreSound Intelligence was allowed to operate at maximum value for Difficult environments, but all sounds were attenuated as it suppressed loud sounds while also suppressing details in speech sounds. So, I turned it off after a week.
I also tried the More’s in Full Directional. I must admit that this is the most useful of them all. But things are still difficult because the noise in the noisy environment does not come from just one direction. It is difficult to put the noise behind me and the speaker in front of me in the work environment.
I was told that I would not benefit from Speech Rescue. Once I insisted and it was activated for the right ear, but there was no change. Here’s my audiogram. I’ve tried adding it to my profile before but I couldn’t figure out how to do it.
Yes, your HCP would have more resources available to attenuate noise with the Lumity. I am still assessing whether those digital features help me with speech comprehension, though. With my More, I noticed that in not-so-challenging situations, less is more, meaning that my brain prefers a rawer sound over an overly processed one. However, I still rely on the features @Volusiano mentioned when in very noisy places. Based on my experience (and please note that my hearing loss is mostly conductive, and I am not an HCP), I would suggest you explore with your HCP the possibility of wearing closed domes/molds, very little amplification on the lows, and an adequate gain on the mids and highs. That could help you seal your ears from the rumble and improve clarity. You might be experiencing a frequency imbalance that hinders your speech comprehension (too much low, too little mid and hi).
Yes, I mean that frequency imbalance. I think this is exactly what I experienced. For example, when using a headphones, if it is a bass-intensive headphones, it becomes difficult to hear clear it in that because it drowns out the mid-high frequencies with lows. That’s why I use low bass headphones. I already hear the low freqs more. As far as I understand, you’re talking about balancing by reducing the low freq amplification. It might make sense.
I’m still following topic. It would be great if you share more experiences with the L90 in the coming days. Thanks for trying to help.
There’s a little EQ button in the upper right in the adjustment section of the app.
Music will always be richer with custom tips.
In general, people with conductive loss need less noise processing as the cochlea is functioning properly, so people with sensorineural loss should be conservative with comparisons.
This is why it’s valuable to see your actual audiogram instead of just hearing your description of it. According to the details of your audiogram, your loss cannot really take advantage of Speech Rescue the way it’s set up, so that’s why you noticed not much difference when you tried.
It seems like you’ve tried everything else with the More from the sound of it. Perhaps a brand of aid that is more frontal beam forming and blocking surrounding noise not aggressively, and not so much with the open paradigm (like maybe Phonak) will help you better. The open paradigm doesn’t always work well for everybody.
The Bluetooth range of the Lumity is considerably better, and the connection with the hearing aid is more stable during streaming compared to my More. I can hit play, leave my iPhone behind, and walk around the house enjoying my podcast with no hiccups. I haven’t had any issues with my iPhone in my pockets, either - an ongoing problem with my More. The flip side is that the filters are still kicking in while streaming, which is distracting and a bit annoying.
In moderatly noisy places, I do hear voices in a crisper and clearer way with the Lumity, whereas background noise often gets muffled and sounds unnatural. It is a bit odd when the background noise is attenuated and my ability to pick up human speech is maintained. Odd but often effective, I see the point of these digital features. However, so far, I don’t think the Lumity has shown an edge over my More for speech comprehension, though I haven’t been to a very noisy place with the Lumity yet.
The battery on day 2 lasted for 12 hours until it reached the 10% level again. I’d definitely need a boost around midafternoon if those were my daily hearing aids. I rarely had to even think about that with my More. In two years, I probably needed a boost once or twice, and those were very, very long days. Funny thing: with my More the left HA depletes faster; with the Lumity the right HA depletes faster…
You mean if I EQ the “automatic” program, then when I stream it will be EQed? I see this EQ button for all programs, except the “BT streaming + mic”? The streaming program is pretty good, though. I’d say that it sounds a bit better than my More. Edit: I take it back. The Lumity are charging and I am streaming music to my DSL dedicated music program on my More. Hard to decide the better one, but hats off to the Lumity with domes. They sure would sound superb with custom tips.
On the other hand, my guitars still sound awful. It is just not fun to play them with the Lumity. Listening to music with my headphones over the Lumity also sounds dull and boring. I asked my HCP about having a dedicated music program with the DSL fitting formula. No can do. Oticon allows us to have up to four programs, each with any of the major fitting formulas. Hence, I use either NAL-NL2 or VAC+ for my main program and DSL for music. That is not possible with Phonak hearing aids; the software allows only one fitting formula in all programs. Since I don’t like DSL for anything other than music, I’m sticking with NAL-NL2 with the Lumity.
It’s true that Phonak’s software forces you to pick one single fitting formula to be automatically applied to all programs, but unless I’m missing something, there should be another way to get to what you want here. It’s possible to manually adjust the gain of every band. Your audi should be able to pick DSL as the fitting formula, screenshot whatever the music program automatically sets as the gain for each band with DSL, change the aids back to NAL-NL2 or whatever other formula you want, then manually recreate the DSL settings in only the music program.
I agree with you, that is indeed possible. However, even with the same target gains, they sound different to me. I’ve tried them all with my More and the DSL sounds the best: crisp, dynamic, punchy, lively… it gives me the impression my guitars resonate right. The other ones are a few steps behind compared to DSL. Maybe this is just some placebo effect
Edit: I will ask him to setup the Lumity with DSL and see how music sounds then, even if only to hear if that would make any difference.
I bet you the muffled background noise bit that sounds unnatural to you is the diffused noise that you hear coming from the front. It’s not the direct noise sources from behind or the sides, but it’s the diffused part of these noise sources, so that’s probably why it sounds unnatural.
You probably have developed your brain hearing well enough with the More that you can still differentiate and focus on the speech and understand it despite still hearing the surrounding noise. That’s the whole point of the open paradigm. That’s probably despite the Lumity giving you clearer voices thanks to the more aggressively muffled noise, it doesn’t have an edge over the More because you can still make out speech in noise OK with the More. But I’m sure in extremely noisy environment, the Lumity will most likely give you an edge like you suspect.
The question then becomes how often you are going to be in extremely noisy environment, and whether missing out on the noise bothers you or not? Some people are happy as a clam not having to hear any noises whatsoever. Others prefer to be able to hear noises as long as they can still understand speech amongst the noise, because after all, sometimes what you think is “noise” becomes what you want to hear, like a waiter talking from behind you.
Over the frequency spectrum, it looks like your left ear is a bit worse, so this makes sense for the More left aid to go dead first. On Phonak, the BT master role is on the right aid by default. This may be why your right phonak aid goes dead first. My left ear is a bit better, so I had the BT master moved over to the left aid. Evens things out a little bit.
Oh no, sorry, I misunderstood. You’d have to get an equalizer app, but it’s not really the same.
What “filters” do you mean? Are you sure this is what you are hearing? The streaming program doesn’t engage a lot of processing. However, there are two subprograms for speech and for music, and the music program adds a substantial low frequency boost that I find quite noticeable. If you don’t like the switching, your clinician can smooth it out pretty easily just by matching the gain across subprograms.
Yes and no. You can’t have a second automatic program, but you can certainly have a dedicated music program set to DSL targets. You cannot choose a different prescriptive target in the software, but you can just match it with REM. Or yes, as CombatWombat says they can match in the software and that will be DSL-ish.
DSL applies more high frequency gain; it prioritizes audibility versus NL2 prioritizing loudness equalization.
Let me reiterate that this is not what Oticon’s moto means. Oticon is trying to use what we know of how the brain hears naturally to optimize their hearing aid processing, which is a great goal. They are not claiming that their hearing aids develop your brain in any unique way that other hearing aids do not.
The podcast sounds different from time to time. It is like the HA changes the program and with that the sound profile I was listening to also changes, if you know what I mean. Or maybe it is the sound coming from the mics that changes… I will try to replicate this issue with the mics turned off tomorrow. Anyways, I am pretty sure this is not very difficult to sort out in a next session with my clinitian.
I do have a custom program dedicated to music, just can’t have it with DSL since I prefer NL2 overall.
Does it mean DSL has more of a raw response (truer to the input) compared to NL2? That is what I hear, or I think I hear. Hence, DSL works best for music in my expirience. Or maybe it is just a matter of preference combined with placebo and bias lol. Thanks, Neville, always appreciate it.
If your podcast has a lot of music, Radiolab for example, the streaming program would likely get confused over whether it should be applying “music” gain or “speech” gain. You can resolve it by either boosting the lows in the speech subprogram or reducing the lows in the music subprogram, depending on your richness preference.
I agree that Oticon is not claiming that their hearing aids develop the brain in any unique way. But I maintain that what Oticon is saying is that with the open paradigm, it’s OK to want to hear more sounds around you if you so desire, because your normal brain hearing (the normal way people hear, not any special other way) will take care of it. It’ll learn to adapt and differentiate between different sounds and be able to focus on what you want to hear more, including speech (with a little help from the Oticon aids to make the speech a bit cleaner). You don’t have to shut off all the surrounding noise as the only way to able to hear speech.
So Oticon is not saying that their aids helps develop any special kind brain hearing. Oticon is just saying that don’t be afraid of the open paradigm because your normal brain hearing will take care of the sorting out for you. May take some time to adjust if you’re used to speech exclusivity before, but you’ll get there.
One caveat, I think, is that this doesn’t necessarily apply to everybody. I think folks with much heavier hearing losses such that they wide dynamic range compression is too heavily compressed, there’s not enough wiggle room in the compressed gain to really sort out the different sounds as well.
That’s why when @e1405 switched from the More to the Lumity, he said that OK, there’s less surrounding noise with the Lumity and speech seems crispier and clearer than the More (probably because of the speech exclusivity), but hey, he can still understand speech with his More just fine as well, even if it’s not crispier and clearer.
I can’t speak for @e1405 on whether he would understand speech just as well with the More if he’d started out exclusively with the Lumity first, becomes used to the speech exclusivity, then gets overwhelmed initially with speech understanding when trying out the More next, because the open paradigm lets all the noise in to compete with the speech.
But while I can’t speak for @e1405 about this, this is the EXACT thing that happened to me when I went from a pair of Costco Rexton aids that had frontal beam forming in noise to the Oticon OPN aids. I was completely overwhelmed in a noisy place and could not focus on and understand speech, because I was already accustomed to the speech exclusivity in the Rextons. But eventually, I learned to adjust and re-adapt and regain my normal brain hearing to learn to focus on speech and filter out the noise.
I remember it took me a good month or so not to be bothered anymore by the noise (around the house, in the car, on the street, in noisy places). Then the couple of months that ensued it, I don’t get overwhelmed much by the noise anymore and started to be able to engage in conversation in noisy places. So I’d say a good 3 months. But I think it depends heavily on how much exposure you have with the noisy places. The more, and more frequent, exposure you have, I think the faster you can adjust. I would give it a few months though.
If you’re retired and rarely go to noisy places, you may never be able to adjust, though.
P.S. And I also embraced it and had a positive about it, too. Otherwise, if you just get turned off by it and never earnestly try to adjust, it may not work as fast as you hope for either.
I think that makes sense, @Volusiano . If you allow me, I’d like to clarify and comment on a few things:
I remember experiencing a significant improvement in my hearing when I switched from my old Phonak Audeo to Oticon OPN 3 about eight years ago. Since my hearing loss is not as complex as most on this forum, I would guess that part of the improvement has to do with the change in technological concepts (from speech-centered to open). It is also certainly due to a combination of newer hearing aids, a more competent HCP, an updated audiogram, and a better setup.
I also noticed a significant leap forward when I purchased my old second-hand Oticon OPN 1 from eBay. OPN 1 provided me with more dynamic range compared to my old OPN 3, which was a game-changer for music. At this point, I have already become a DIYer, and that was a huge positive factor as well, given all the constraints I face where I live.
Things got even better when I got my More about two years ago. In my experience, they are a step or two ahead to the OPN. Meanwhile, I have also delved deep into the empirical route haha. I have done a humongous amount of trial and error, to the point where I understand my hearing loss much better and know what to do to improve it, or at least have the hearing aids the way I like. Music never sounded better and more natural with the program I crafted.
So, here I am, almost a decade since I went the Oticon route. Yup, I can say that I have gotten used to Oticon’s open paradigm. I recently posted that I had a blast at a little party, singing and playing the guitar with my More set to my music program. This program has all the digital features I can control switched off and almost no compression, meaning it is very “open”, if you catch my meaning. I had no problems with noise, conversations, the guitar, my own voice singing, etc. Is it perfect, though? No, it is not. Conversations could be better, for instance. I’d love to have the unnecessary background noise tuned down a notch or two, BUT not at the cost of ruining music for me.
At the risk of getting ahead of myself, as I still have three days with the Lumity: apart from music (I prefer my More, hands down), I’d say More and Lumity are quite excellent hearing aids, constrained by the same laws of physics (signal-to-noise ratio – SNR). Each has its own implementation to work around this limitation. Since people’s hearing losses and expectations differ greatly, some folks would pick one concept, some the other. This is such a personal thing, can’t see a one-size-fits-all kinda of solution for hearing loss.
They aren’t saying this. Oticon is applying a huge amount of sound processing to help support a damaged sensory organ that can no longer do the things that it used to be able to do. They are just processing things differently. Absolutely I agree that there is learning involved in speech in noise processing, and so there is practice and adaptation there*. But Oticon is not saying, “don’t worry, let your brain do it”, they are saying, “Let our hearing aids do it, they support your brain in a more natural way.” The brain isn’t taking care of the sorting–the oticon hearing aids are doing it. Putting other hearing aids into omni (as I’ve seen suggested on these boards in places) is NOT at all like the Oticon strategy, and really misses the point that Oticon is doing something pretty cool.
*As an aside, speaking of practicing skills, I think people’s speech in noise skills really declined during the pandemic lockdowns. Not just people with hearing loss.
Edit: Let me also mention that I think it’s not impossible that Oticon, as they continue to refine what they are doing, may get to a point where they aren’t noisier, where their speech cleaning is powerful enough to really lift the target speech out of the background very clearly. Or maybe that will take long enough for their patent to expire and all manufacturers will start implementing a mixture of the two strategies. But maybe I’m also an optimist who imagines everyone getting together and making one perfect hearing aid right before we successfully restore cochlear damage with gene therapy.
Great clarification from you here, @Neville . That is why I put in my post #36 that the brain hearing will learn to adapt “(with a little help from the Oticon aids to make the speech a bit cleaner)”. Maybe I should have put it in stronger emphasis instead of just in parenthesis to qualify my point.
But the reason I put it in parenthesis is because I didn’t want to belittle the point that it takes both to tango (the extra help from the Oticon aids like you mentioned, AND the brain hearing), and this is where we diverge in our points here. You said that there’s nothing special about the brain hearing here, it’s the normal thing that’s been around forever and Oticon aids don’t help develop any special kind of brain hearing. And while I agree, I still contend that if one is used to and prefer the speech exclusivity afforded by the traditional hearing aids, and doesn’t have the right positive attitude in embracing the open paradigm by allowing their brain hearing to work with it, then it would be very hard for the open paradigm to work all by itself.
That is why Oticon promoted the open paradigm first and foremost, but ALSO coupled it with the concept of brain hearing to let the users know that the brain hearing will support the open paradigm that the Oticon aids have facilitated with their special “tricks”.
I totally agree that if you put the other hearing aids into omni, it doesn’t make it become like wearing the Oticon aids. Why? Because the Oticon aids employ technologies to do help users in the open paradigm. Things like MDVR beam forming (actually not a new thing invented by Oticon) to balance the sound scene better, clean up the speech further by removing the diffused noise mixed in with the speech, put in voice activity detector to pick up speech in the 360 degree field and let those surrounding speeches through if necessary, invented a new preventive feedback technology to help regain more SNR for further speech enhancement as necessary. Then their DNN technology upgrades the way they clean up speech by using AI to further process the sound scene rebalancing with a more clever and effective way, by breaking down the sound components of a sound scene and rebuilding them up in a more balanced way as desired by the user.
But I do thank you for the clarification and fully agree with you that:
The brain hearing is nothing new, and Oticon doesn’t help develop any uniquely new brain hearing.
Without the special technology “tricks” that Oticon put into their hearing aids to help out, the brain hearing of a hearing impaired person is probably not good enough to function alone effectively without this help.
