• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: I've had it, anyone else?

"bubba" <JSmith@wherever.com> wrote in message
news:dv-dnWQXKvMXClbanZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@giganews.com...
>> If they are using the Hi-Pro, then all your sessions are recorded in
>> NOAH, the base program. They may not know how to retrieve old data,
>> though. It is tricky.
>
> Perhaps so, but from what I've been able to see of the NOAH screen, they
> aren't using patient-centric data, but just starting up by reading the
> aids without a particular filename specified.  Ditto' as to saving, unless
> NOAH is saving to a coded filename, coded by date/time or perhaps serial#
> cause they aren't specifying anything to save post programming.  Each
> sesssion is the same, connect to the Hi-Pro, wipe the eprom, and start at
> some default point - not at the last settings- and start doodling around
> on the mouse pad, with lots of "is that better?".  That's about the sum
of
> their programming.  Rarely even bother using any background sound, just
> the audie's voice in an otherwise quiet, carpeted environment.  You can
> imagine what the programming turns into in an open, hard-surfaced
> community center or such.  Once, the audie got frustrated and let me
> doodle around on the mouse pad for a couple of minutes -- best fit I've
> had, but nope, when I next went back to tweak things up some, back to
> square one.
>
>> The program reads the data in your aids, and asks if the programmer wants
>> to use the program calculated data or that resident in the aid. Tell the
>> audiologist to use the data from the aid and fewer errors will occur.
>
> Well, I do agree with this, the calculated data is never even close to my
> actual perceived needs.  Understand that I do put up with really
> unpleasant programming for at least a month to see if adaptation will
> occur and if there is improvement in perception.  I've always had the
> audie keep listening program #3 the same (by hand-writing down all the
> settings and transcribing them back into NOAH).  It's a suboptimal, but
> known setting that I can function with in most emvironments, and has been
> a fall-back when the new programming fails me in some environments.
> Unfortunately, I was so disappointed and fatigued after this last session
> that all I wanted to do was get out of the office, and was well down the
> road home before realizing the idiot turned off the t-coils as well as
> program #3, so now I'm stuck with a bad program, with just the factory
> default changes on program #2 for a noise environment.
>
>> How does a cardiologist know whether your heart is having a problem,
>> simply by listening with a stethescope? They don't have heart disease!
>
> Poor analogy.  Most heart disease in this country does not cause audible
> murmurs.  Diagnosis is not normally by stethoscope, although we always
> listen.
>
>> One listens for abnormalities that the hearing impaired might not hear,
>> but can cause distortion, which the patient hears as static, etc.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> One thing I've wondered about from you self programmers who use NOAH, how
>> do you justify having paid for a license? Do you just lie? Is that
>> ethical?
>
> Personally, I'm not to that point yet, but trying to get there.  First,
> why would a self-programmer need NOAH, isn't it just a shell for the
> manufacturers proprietary programs?  Else why does Siemens tout Connexx
> for standalone programming, and is now touting Unity as a complete
> diagnostic/programming/workflow package?  It appears to me that Unity is
> also acting as a shell for component programs, just Siemens-centric.
>
> Secondly, when I consider what my trips to the audiologist the last 3
> years have cost me in terms of lost income, expenses of covering my
> business while gone, etc., I could easily have paid the estimated price of
> Phonak Excelias (in addition to my current aids) with all the options and
> be ahead.  A price cannot be placed on the frustration when one is able to
> hear and comprehend well on a cheap amplified phone, and understand speech
> perfectly well on TV with headphones and a bit of graphics equalizer
> twiddling, but 3 years of ditzing around with the audies in one firm have
> produced minimal improvements in comprehension via the aids.  I consider
> the price of the aid to be the least expense in my case.  I'm one of the
> fortunate that have a license that allows legitimate purchase of the
> software (and hardware, for that matter), and yes, ethically.  I don't
> WANT to be a self programmer, I don't WANT to cut into anyone's profit or
> living, I dont WANT to need a Hi-Pro, but I DO want to hear, and hear as
> well as is possible within my abilities.  I am not getting that from the
> audie, but would prefer that was where the help came from.  I'm getting
> some sort of technician with a hearing instrument specialist's ticket
> that's obviously fiddling around whilst in over his head in the
> technology.  I hope that statement doesn't offend others here, as I'm
> certain there are many excellent H.I.S. out there, just not where I'm
> from.  I would like a more advanced aid with more native features, but
> what's the point when I can't get a 6 channel aid properly programmed?
>
>> They probably find them daunting from a technological point of view.
>> Phonak will dispatch a trainer to help them help you, if they will just
>> ask. Most manufacturers do that.
>
> You would think, especially as this firm handles mostly Siemens, that they
> could program them for someone other than the typical presbycus.  Perhaps
> I shouldn't be calling my audie for help, but rather Siemens to help the
> audie?  Bet that'd win brownie points.
>
>> Dr. Ridenhour
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.  But your little theater trumps my CV.
>
> Bubba, M.D.
>
>

I truly hope you find a solution to your dilemma.
Best wishes.

Michael

Antworten