|
Home > Archive > Hearing loss support > May 2005 > CICs versus BTEs
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| A Ph.D. audiologist just told me I could use a CIC aid, but that they
are less durable and capable than BTE's. Fine, I said -- I still want a
CIC (I've never used a hearing aid before). He then suggested that I
get a low-end (<$1,000)model, because the "bells and whistles" of the
latest multichannel circuitry are useless on a CIC. He called this a
matter of "common sense," since a CIC doesn't have room for multiple
mics, multiple channels, etc. I applaud the audiologist's honesty, but
wonder if he's truly up to date. Is there any research on this? Any
experiences? Thanks!!!
| |
| ardway 2005-05-20, 5:55 pm |
| He doesn't have to wear it, so the profit margin on a BTE makes it a
better deal (for him). He can buy several dozen BTEs, getting a much
lower cost for each, at least a 33% discount off the single unit price.
The CICs are individually ordered, since they are custom made by hand
and cost him far more, as they have no group discount, unless you buy 10
at a time.
There are those nosy Parkers on this newsgroup who will extol the
virtues of the BTE over the CIC, but for a first time user, get the one
you will wear, the CIC.
As far as the sophistication, again the audiologist is wrong. By telling
you to get the cheapest one (because they are all the same, he says) he
is ensuring that you will return it and get the more sensible (better
profit margin) BTE. CICs today are extremely sophisticated and well
worth the extra money.
I wear BTEs, due to the amount of hearing loss I have, plus structural
deformities of the ear canal which make it impossible for me to wear the
CICs. But if I could I would in a New York minute.
C. Ardway
Steve wrote:
> A Ph.D. audiologist just told me I could use a CIC aid, but that they
> are less durable and capable than BTE's. Fine, I said -- I still want a
> CIC (I've never used a hearing aid before). He then suggested that I
> get a low-end (<$1,000)model, because the "bells and whistles" of the
> latest multichannel circuitry are useless on a CIC. He called this a
> matter of "common sense," since a CIC doesn't have room for multiple
> mics, multiple channels, etc. I applaud the audiologist's honesty, but
> wonder if he's truly up to date. Is there any research on this? Any
> experiences? Thanks!!!
>
| |
|
| There are nosy Parkers on this newsgroup who will extol the virtues of
the CIC over the BTE, eh? What you say about the profit margins may be
true, from the way dealers are pushing the ITE's one would think it isn't.
From what I've been reading, it looks like a few have a personal stake
in other people's BTE or CIC choice. You're telling Steve to get the
CIC's except buy a more expensive one. One usually hears this type of
advice from the sellers of aids and in their brochures. Are you trying
to get into the industry? I'm kidding but it strange to hear this from a
user.
However, I can't believe that a doc would go through the trouble of
ordering an aid and do the fitting and trial period twice with the goal
of making a few more bucks. It does not sound like a good business
strategy. I would think he would lose money on this deal, certainly he'd
lose his time.
david
ardway wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> He doesn't have to wear it, so the profit margin on a BTE makes it a
> better deal (for him). He can buy several dozen BTEs, getting a much
> lower cost for each, at least a 33% discount off the single unit price.
> The CICs are individually ordered, since they are custom made by hand
> and cost him far more, as they have no group discount, unless you buy 10
> at a time.
> There are those nosy Parkers on this newsgroup who will extol the
> virtues of the BTE over the CIC, but for a first time user, get the one
> you will wear, the CIC.
> As far as the sophistication, again the audiologist is wrong. By telling
> you to get the cheapest one (because they are all the same, he says) he
> is ensuring that you will return it and get the more sensible (better
> profit margin) BTE. CICs today are extremely sophisticated and well
> worth the extra money.
> I wear BTEs, due to the amount of hearing loss I have, plus structural
> deformities of the ear canal which make it impossible for me to wear the
> CICs. But if I could I would in a New York minute.
>
> C. Ardway
>
> Steve wrote:
>
| |
| kkerrison@ozemail.com.au 2005-05-21, 8:50 am |
| Every deaf person wants an invisible aid. For me, with profound loss,
they were never an option.
I say: find a good audiologist and follow his/her advice. If you have
any reservations about the advice you have received get a second
opinion. Also check out any audiologist by contacting local hearing
support groups, approaching people wearing hearing aids (this has
happened to me and I have been happy to talk) and check with
doctors/ENT specialists.
The rational criterion is to get an aid which will do the job. If an
invisible aid will work for you then go for it.
| |
| glucas4189@hotmail.com 2005-05-21, 8:50 am |
| Hi,
The audiologist may be right. You will be getting added benefit from
having an ear that is unblocked by a mould. I believe that recent
studies have shown that there is a net effect of added gain from about
3db to 22db across all frequencies when using a CIC, compared to a BTE.
Also, you will get better localisation and directionality, as the
microphone placement is near the ear canal and not behind the ear.
The CIC does have room for multiple channels, but not multiple
microphones. At least that is my current understanding. Because
microphones have to be a certain distance apart to prevent feedback,
this is a problem with CICs, as they are so small. However all the top
digital aids have the same chip, so it will have all the noise
suppression capability and so on, so multiple channels are possible -
although as the audiologist said, perhaps not so required as compared
to a BTE.
I experienced a lot of benefit when switching from BTEs to ITC aids.
There was a loss of power, but this was made up by the fact that I
could hear more, especially in noise.
I would go for a CIC, if feel you are struggling, then try a more
sophisticated digital, the likes of Phonak, Bernafon, Sonic
Innovations, Widex or Siemens.
Best of luck
Graham
| |
| ardway 2005-05-21, 5:51 pm |
| I've seen folks getting pretty nasty about bte vs cic and saying that
you are a fool if you get the cic. They are nosy Parkers.
I am kind of a techno nut, so, it seems to me that all the extra stuff
my audie told me about the innards of cics of various levels of
sophistication, plus what is easily gleaned from websites, the more
sophistication the better and the happier he will be with it.
From what I see in the local paper, sounds like getting into the
hearing aid business is kinda like getting into politics, risky business.
No thanks!
Ardway
dsi1 wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> There are nosy Parkers on this newsgroup who will extol the virtues of
> the CIC over the BTE, eh? What you say about the profit margins may be
> true, from the way dealers are pushing the ITE's one would think it isn't.
>
> From what I've been reading, it looks like a few have a personal stake
> in other people's BTE or CIC choice. You're telling Steve to get the
> CIC's except buy a more expensive one. One usually hears this type of
> advice from the sellers of aids and in their brochures. Are you trying
> to get into the industry? I'm kidding but it strange to hear this from a
> user.
>
> However, I can't believe that a doc would go through the trouble of
> ordering an aid and do the fitting and trial period twice with the goal
> of making a few more bucks. It does not sound like a good business
> strategy. I would think he would lose money on this deal, certainly he'd
> lose his time.
>
> david
>
>
> ardway wrote:
>
| |
| Bill M 2005-05-21, 5:51 pm |
| Endless reading can be found about CIC vs. BTE. I wonder if there was once
similar debate about body worn vs. BTE? Some of us remember those, and also
the hearing aids that were build into eyeglass frames.
( my wife just entered the room. She's had body-worn,
in-the-eyeglass-frames, and BTE. I asked about her hearing-aid eyeglass
combo: 'They were good, everything was in one package, feedback was a
constant problem, they were OK ( while signing "hate" ), but my Berafons
were really good and so are my Phonaks" )
My wife uses heaing aids with enough power for sonic welding. CIC has never
been an option, because of money and power required. Her Phonaks are
Purple. She is comfortable with herself and likes purple. Now back to the
topic:
It's the psychology of CIC that interests me. How people feel about people
who use hearing aids is important. "How will I look?" is just as important
as "How will I hear?" It's not "How will I look to me?", it is "How will I
look to other people? What assumptions will others make about me when they
see I use hearing aids?"
Sadly, hearing aids are associatied with senility. Hearing loss is
associated with other negative things, too. It's natural that people wish
to hide it. And profitable.
Bill M
| |
| kkerrison@ozemail.com.au 2005-05-21, 10:51 pm |
|
There has never really been a debate about cic versus bte. As I said,
everyone wants an invisible aid. And, obviously, a CIC benefits from
the sound-gathering ability of the outer-ear and yields more sensitive
directionality. So for those who can benefit from them that is the way
to go.
But for the profoundly deaf thay are not, currently, an option and I
doubt that they will ever be (because a battery small enough to fit
inside them would last about half an hour at the level of amplification
people like me need).
I have pointed out that wearing a BTE at least lets everyone know you
are deaf which can be helpful especially if you are VERY deaf. This is
not a reason to get BTEs but is a positive counterpart to their
unsightliness. Let's face it, whatever colour they are they are not
things of beauty.
But all the experienced users will support me in saying that, if you
need them, get them. After you have negotiated the learning curve they
will transform your life. Remember how ugly the Volkswagen beetles
looked until we learnt what they would do.
| |
|
| Hi Steve,
I agree with Ken in that if a CIC will do the job, then go for it. I wear a
CIC in my right ear and a BTE in my left. The CIC is so much more
comfortable, and easier to insert and remove. I've had very little trouble
with it (it's a Widex Senso) and after 5 and a half years, it's still going
strong. Even in that amount of time, CICs have become more sophisticated and
suitable for a wider range of people.
Good luck!
Maree
"Steve" <sgolds@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1116623471.886693.144390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> A Ph.D. audiologist just told me I could use a CIC aid, but that they
> are less durable and capable than BTE's. Fine, I said -- I still want a
> CIC (I've never used a hearing aid before). He then suggested that I
> get a low-end (<$1,000)model, because the "bells and whistles" of the
> latest multichannel circuitry are useless on a CIC. He called this a
> matter of "common sense," since a CIC doesn't have room for multiple
> mics, multiple channels, etc. I applaud the audiologist's honesty, but
> wonder if he's truly up to date. Is there any research on this? Any
> experiences? Thanks!!!
>
| |
| Bill M 2005-05-22, 8:50 am |
| Yes! It didn't take long for people to notice that he Volkswagon Beetle
could drive out of snow that other cars had to be towed out of. And later,
the "Baja Bug."
Bill M
<kkerrison@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1116726195.487696.29360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> There has never really been a debate about cic versus bte. As I said,
> everyone wants an invisible aid. And, obviously, a CIC benefits from
> the sound-gathering ability of the outer-ear and yields more sensitive
> directionality. So for those who can benefit from them that is the way
> to go.
>
> But for the profoundly deaf thay are not, currently, an option and I
> doubt that they will ever be (because a battery small enough to fit
> inside them would last about half an hour at the level of amplification
> people like me need).
>
> I have pointed out that wearing a BTE at least lets everyone know you
> are deaf which can be helpful especially if you are VERY deaf. This is
> not a reason to get BTEs but is a positive counterpart to their
> unsightliness. Let's face it, whatever colour they are they are not
> things of beauty.
>
> But all the experienced users will support me in saying that, if you
> need them, get them. After you have negotiated the learning curve they
> will transform your life. Remember how ugly the Volkswagen beetles
> looked until we learnt what they would do.
>
| |
| ardway 2005-05-22, 8:50 am |
| Bill M wrote:
> Endless reading can be found about CIC vs. BTE. I wonder if there was once
> similar debate about body worn vs. BTE? Some of us remember those, and also
> the hearing aids that were build into eyeglass frames.
> It's the psychology of CIC that interests me. How people feel about people
> who use hearing aids is important. "How will I look?" is just as important
> as "How will I hear?" It's not "How will I look to me?", it is "How will I
> look to other people? What assumptions will others make about me when they
> see I use hearing aids?"
>
> Sadly, hearing aids are associatied with senility. Hearing loss is
> associated with other negative things, too. It's natural that people wish
> to hide it. And profitable.
>
> Bill M
I don't know what the "profitable" comment has to do with anything.
Either Bill M was born a rich socialist, is very young and immature or
is on welfare. The rest of us depend on profitability in our work to
feed our families. Without it, we are just slaves, like in the USSR of
old. No business could hire us if it didn't make money.
CICs aren't more expensive because of vanity, but because they are more
labor intensive to make.
I'm reminded by the "How will I look to other people" comment, of my
situation a few decades ago.
When I had a comb-over years ago people would hassle me about not
wanting other people to know I was bald. My reply was, "I can't see the
back of my head, so a comb-over isn't so you won't think I'm bald. I
have the comb-over so that when I hold my head just right when I look in
the mirror, I won't think I'm bald."
There are lots of reasons why people make choices, Bill, that may not
occur to you.
C. Ardway
| |
|
|
"Steve" <sgolds@u.washington.edu> je napisao u poruci interesnoj
grupi:1116623471.886693.144390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>A Ph.D. audiologist just told me I could use a CIC aid, but that they
> are less durable and capable than BTE's. Fine, I said -- I still want a
> CIC (I've never used a hearing aid before). He then suggested that I
> get a low-end (<$1,000)model, because the "bells and whistles" of the
> latest multichannel circuitry are useless on a CIC. He called this a
> matter of "common sense," since a CIC doesn't have room for multiple
> mics, multiple channels, etc. I applaud the audiologist's honesty, but
> wonder if he's truly up to date. Is there any research on this? Any
> experiences? Thanks!!!
I think in future will not be needed BTA HA. Only "problem" with CIC models
is they areīt strong for all , and they have batteries wich have less power.
When solve that, everybody will weare cic models in youre ears ;-)
P.S: they donīt "bells and whistles"
| |
| Bill M 2005-05-22, 5:51 pm |
| I just gave up. I never tried a comb-over, and never considered hair
restoration. I used a razor to get a hair line that I like better than
natural pattern baldness. Some people do go after hair restoration, though.
Some people have gone through a lot of expense and pain to get better hair.
Appearance needs drive people.
I'm not young or on wellfare. I've been self-supporting since I was
seventeen. If I were a rich socialist I would order hearing aids from
American Cheers.
Bill M
"ardway" <elbow@medblock.edu> wrote in message
news:w60ke.10150$Ri4.7497@okepread07...
>
> I don't know what the "profitable" comment has to do with anything. Either
> Bill M was born a rich socialist,
| |
| Ardent 2005-05-22, 10:51 pm |
| X-No-Archive: yes
On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:31:12 -0400, ardway <elbow@medblock.edu> wrote:
>I wear BTEs, due to the amount of hearing loss I have, plus structural
>deformities of the ear canal which make it impossible for me to wear the
>CICs. But if I could I would in a New York minute.
IMHO CICs have one great advantage over the BTE. The BTE uses a tiny
hole to receive the sound vibrations, the ear lobe is of no use here.
In the case of the CIC the ear lobe helps a lot in gathering the sound
waves, as it is intended for. Because of this the discrimination also
is better than with the BTE
HTH
--
Sandy Archer
Reply to newsgroups only
| |
|
| Hi Maree,
I too wear a CIC in the right ear and a BTE in my left ear. I find the
CIC to be so much more comfortable than the BTE. At home I only wear
the CIC and I only put the BTE in when I am going out. I went to an
ENT Specialist a couple of months ago and he nearly freaked out when he
saw what I was wearing. He said throw the CIC away and get 2 BTE's.
I felt like saying to him...Will you pay for it???
Sue
| |
|
|
<kkerrison@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1116726195.487696.29360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> As I said,
> everyone wants an invisible aid.
I am not so sure about this any more. I am starting to think there is an
advantage to having people know I am hard of hearing. They might be a bit
more understanding when I am having trouble understanding.
| |
|
| The BTE has advantages if you want a very open fitting. Putting the mics
further away from the sound output cuts back on feedback.
"Tommy" <tperegli_REMOVE_@inet.hr> wrote in message
news:d6qq2e$ke5$1@sunce.iskon.hr...
>
> "Steve" <sgolds@u.washington.edu> je napisao u poruci interesnoj
> grupi:1116623471.886693.144390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I think in future will not be needed BTA HA. Only "problem" with CIC
> models is they areīt strong for all , and they have batteries wich have
> less power. When solve that, everybody will weare cic models in youre ears
> ;-)
>
> P.S: they donīt "bells and whistles"
>
| |
|
|
Seems like it's the latest trend in hearing aids: BTE setups for
mild/high frequency loses, rather than the traditional high power need
loses. A new way to sell BTE aids. I like the BTEs cause there is space
to fit multiple mics and telecoils and bigger components. If you're
worried about the cosmetic part, the truth is that the newer BTE aids
are small and if you had some hair behind your ears which is the key, a
fitting can be very discrete. This is not to say that a BTE is a better
choice that a CIC, it's just a personal opinion.
david
JLM wrote:
> The BTE has advantages if you want a very open fitting. Putting the mics
> further away from the sound output cuts back on feedback.
>
> "Tommy" <tperegli_REMOVE_@inet.hr> wrote in message
> news:d6qq2e$ke5$1@sunce.iskon.hr...
>
>
>
>
| |
| maree 2005-05-26, 11:49 am |
| Hi Steve,
I agree with Ken in that if a CIC will do the job, then go for it. I wear a
CIC in my right ear and a BTE in my left. The CIC is so much more
comfortable, and easier to insert and remove. I've had very little trouble
with it (it's a Widex Senso) and after 5 and a half years, it's still going
strong. Even in that amount of time, CICs have become more sophisticated and
suitable for a wider range of people.
Good luck!
Maree
"Steve" <sgolds@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1116623471.886693.144390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> A Ph.D. audiologist just told me I could use a CIC aid, but that they
> are less durable and capable than BTE's. Fine, I said -- I still want a
> CIC (I've never used a hearing aid before). He then suggested that I
> get a low-end (<$1,000)model, because the "bells and whistles" of the
> latest multichannel circuitry are useless on a CIC. He called this a
> matter of "common sense," since a CIC doesn't have room for multiple
> mics, multiple channels, etc. I applaud the audiologist's honesty, but
> wonder if he's truly up to date. Is there any research on this? Any
> experiences? Thanks!!!
>
| |
| Bill M 2005-05-26, 5:52 pm |
| Yes! It didn't take long for people to notice that he Volkswagon Beetle
could drive out of snow that other cars had to be towed out of. And later,
the "Baja Bug."
Bill M
<kkerrison@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1116726195.487696.29360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> There has never really been a debate about cic versus bte. As I said,
> everyone wants an invisible aid. And, obviously, a CIC benefits from
> the sound-gathering ability of the outer-ear and yields more sensitive
> directionality. So for those who can benefit from them that is the way
> to go.
>
> But for the profoundly deaf thay are not, currently, an option and I
> doubt that they will ever be (because a battery small enough to fit
> inside them would last about half an hour at the level of amplification
> people like me need).
>
> I have pointed out that wearing a BTE at least lets everyone know you
> are deaf which can be helpful especially if you are VERY deaf. This is
> not a reason to get BTEs but is a positive counterpart to their
> unsightliness. Let's face it, whatever colour they are they are not
> things of beauty.
>
> But all the experienced users will support me in saying that, if you
> need them, get them. After you have negotiated the learning curve they
> will transform your life. Remember how ugly the Volkswagen beetles
> looked until we learnt what they would do.
>
|
| |
|
|