|
Home > Archive > Hearing loss support > October 2006 > New BiCros aid system
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]
| Author |
New BiCros aid system
|
|
|
| I just have had for a week and a half a new BiCros system. I had one I used
for almost 8 years from Widex, then about 4 years back I got a Widex Diva
with the same BiCros set=up.
I got very tired of the cable running from my left (pooer) ear to my aid in
the right ear. It would catch on my shirt color or stick to sweaty skin and
generally was just plain a bother. Broke due to pulling, too.
My audiologist suggested I try a wireless system. Phonak bought out Telex
who had a wireless biCros for a while. Phonak took it, went to audio
engineers and pathologists an came up with the Savia model. I am simply
amazed. First of all it IS wireless. I hve a small FM tranmitter with
icrophones on my poorer ear and a phonak Savia on my right ear with an MXLS
microlink connected. It receives the signal from my left ear. Truly
amazing. Clear, clean sound, it doesn;t crankup the volume when in a quiet
area but stay quiet and there is NO circuit noice or microphone hiss or
sound. Amazing. It uses a 13 battery for each one and I love the sound.
the Music program is the best I have ever used. The aid also goes out
to 8,000 cycles if needed. I had only 4,000 and was losing clarity, but
now I understand even more. I have worked for years with the deaf and hard
of hearing and for about 10 years now, I am one of them. I understand a
more appreciate this new technology. You may want to check it out!
Ken Funk - retired special ed teacher.
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Ken Funk - retired special ed teacher.
I have never fully understood the bi-cross bit. s
But the main thing I wanted to say that is you now have access to the
full microlink technology which covers such things as lectures, phone,
tv etc. I consider this technology (which I have never been able to
afford) of similar significance to the advance from analogue to digital
hearing aid technology. Initially the receivers were hung off the aid
(not only Phonaks) but now, as you point out, they incorporate the
receiver in the hearing aid.
There must have been hundreds of posts over the years from users of
microlink - I would urge anyone interested to browse.
(and I still say it is sad that Phonak did not have the nouse to price
microlink more wisely - if they had they would have sold millions
rather than thousands - they make receivers to fit many brands of aids
but the cost is in the $k area).
| |
|
|
Starkey has a new bluetooth gizmo called blu pal which I tried at the
HLA convention in Orlando. It is much cheaper than the micro-link and
smaller. The transmitter is the size of a bic lighter and the
receiver, which can go on any bte with a dai, is similar in size to the
microlink. I have a microlink fm but am bothered by static and poor
reception. The bluepal was awsome. I could here the voice about
thirty five feet away and in noise. By far the best sounding device
I've ever heard. I keep waiting for the release so I can buy one.
Cheers.
On Oct 5, 10:33=A0pm, "Ken" <tec...@surewest.net> wrote:
> I just have had for a week and a half a new BiCros system. =A0I had one I=
used
> for almost 8 years from Widex, then about 4 years back I got a Widex Diva
> with the same BiCros set=3Dup.
>
> I got very tired of the cable running from my left (pooer) ear to my aid =
in
> the right ear. =A0It would catch on my shirt color or stick to sweaty ski=
n and
> generally was just plain a bother. =A0Broke due to pulling, too.
>
> My audiologist suggested I try a wireless system. =A0Phonak bought out Te=
lex
> who had a wireless biCros for a while. =A0Phonak took it, went to audio
> engineers and pathologists an came up with the Savia model. =A0 I am simp=
ly
> amazed. =A0First of all it IS wireless. =A0I hve a small FM tranmitter wi=
th
> icrophones on my poorer ear and a phonak Savia on my right ear with an MX=
LS
> microlink connected. =A0It receives the signal from my left ear. =A0Truly
> amazing. =A0Clear, clean sound, it doesn;t crankup the volume when in a q=
uiet
> area but stay quiet and there is NO circuit noice or microphone hiss or
> sound. =A0Amazing. =A0It uses a 13 battery for each one and I love the so=
und.
> the Music program is the best I =A0have ever used. =A0 =A0 The aid also g=
oes out
> to 8,000 cycles if needed. =A0I had only 4,000 and =A0was losing clarity,=
but
> now I understand even more. =A0I have worked for years with the deaf and =
hard
> of hearing and for about 10 years now, I am one of them. =A0I understand a
> more appreciate this new technology. =A0You may want to check it out!
>=20
> Ken Funk - retired special ed teacher.
| |
|
|
Jules wrote:
> Starkey has a new bluetooth gizmo called blu pal which I tried at the
> HLA convention in Orlando. It is much cheaper than the micro-link and
> smaller. The transmitter is the size of a bic lighter and the
> receiver, which can go on any bte with a dai, is similar in size to the
> microlink. I have a microlink fm but am bothered by static and poor
> reception. The bluepal was awsome. I could here the voice about
> thirty five feet away and in noise. By far the best sounding device
> I've ever heard. I keep waiting for the release so I can buy one.
>
That is interesting. When Microlink came out, a member of this group
raised the question of whether it was based on bluetooth (which was
also launched about that time- the group member actually worked for
Ericcson - the people who own the bluetooth technology - the name
bluetooth is based on some fierce viking hero of the past).
Obviously the technologies are different.Bluetooth has become something
of an industry standard. Yet only within the last week or so a major
manufacturer has launched yet another radio technology, claimed to be
superior to bluetooth.
In fact the amount of data required to pass over hearing aid fm links
is tiny compared with the capacity of blueooth (which is in the megabit
range). But big cost reductions seemed likely to hearing aid
manufacturers who adopted bluetooth because of the mass usage of the
technology. And there woujdl be other advantages - a host of gear out
there can communicate via bluetooth - many cell phones for instance.
Years later, your post suggests that, finally, years later, a hearing
aid manufacturer has finally moved in this direction.
As in so many areas of digital technology, everyone loses when, instead
of everyone agreeing on one system, each manufacturer goes his own way
and reinvents the wheel.
|
| |
|
|