SIGNALS & NOISE (Letters to Editor) (Mar. 1991)

As Simple As DSP

Dear Editor:

As a dispensing audiologist, I read Dan Sweeney's "DSP for the Hearing Impaired" (September 1990) with great interest. I feel compelled to provide further information.

First, an error was made in describing the nature of a "simple" sensorineural hearing loss. Mr. Sweeney described it as destruction of cilia in the middle ear, when he should have specified the inner ear. By the way, a hearing-impaired individual would tell you his hearing loss is by no means "simple."

Second, at this point in time, for practical purposes the hearing-aid industry has no true digital hearing aids. Yes, Nicolet did create the Phoenix, but as I understand it, they spent about $12 million on research and development and couldn't bring it to market. Can you imagine trying to sell someone on the merits of this huge body type aid when, for the last five to 10 years, canal instruments were available? These new hearing aids are commonly referred to as digitally programmable hearing aids.

Third, I have been told by several major hearing-aid manufacturers that what is available now is just the tip of the iceberg, and some have stated that as far as "programmable" goes, current analog hearing aids with dispenser-controlled potentiometers are programmable hearing aids.

The consumer also needs to know that these new hearing aids do come with a hefty price tag, anywhere from $850 to $2,000 each. Also, depending on which system a dispenser chooses, it can cost anywhere from $500 to $16,000 for the programming unit, a device necessary for the dispenser to program the hearing aid.

-Julie A. Lohrman, M.S., CCC; A Graystone Ear, Nose and Throat Center; Hickory, N.C.

Author's Reply: In regard to my reference to "simple sensorineural hearing loss," I am employing terminology which is in use in the industry. I do not mean to imply that such loss cannot impose a severe disability on the sufferer; I only meant to suggest that sensorineural loss is commonplace and more amenable to treatment by compensatory amplification than some other conditions.

In regard to Nicolet's Phoenix, according to a number of persons interviewed at Nicolet and the parent company, Audiotone, Phoenix hearing aids have been sold, albeit in limited numbers. I do believe Ms. Lohrman is correct in suggesting sales resistance to a body aid in this day and age, and I think such resistance has had an impact on sales of the Phoenix.

About the current programmables being the tip of the iceberg, I thin< that's true. I don't think programmables are a fad. I think we'll see more of them in the future, but the transition will be slow. The hearing-aid wearer is not generally a gadgeteer eager to try the latest and greatest. In fact, he's frequently someone on fixed income who is understandably hesitant to pay thousands for unproven technology.

Ms. Lohrman is right about the price, and the price is a big barrier, particularly when you consider that many wearers of hearing aids will require two aids-each one separately programmed and fitted.

One other point I didn't touch on in my article should be mentioned: Anthropological research suggests that normal humans who live in quiet environments retain acute, wide-band hearing into old age. As audiophiles and music lovers, we all should be ardent campaigners for noise control in our own environments.

-D.S.

Cochlear Colloquy

Dear Editor:

Dan Sweeney's article, "DSP for the Hearing Impaired" (September 1990), was quite comprehensive and well written. There was, however, one error, which appeared on page 43. In the sidebar, "The Basics of Hearing Aid Hardware," Sweeney stated that 3M controls the market for cochlear implants.

This is untrue. Cochlear Corporation's Nucleus 22 offers state-of-the-art technology and greater potential benefits than the single-channel 3M device.

In October 1985, the Food and Drug Administration approved the device for use in post-lingually deafened adults.

It is the first and only multi-channel device to obtain FDA approval. On June 27, 1990, the FDA granted approval for the application of the device in children from ages 2 to 17.

Cochlear Corporation acquired 3M's cochlear implant business and patents on August 15, 1989. With this acquisition, Cochlear consolidated and increased its position as the industry leader.

-Jamie Sosnow Kovak--Thomas Public Relations, New York, N.Y.

Digital Error Correction

Dear Editor:

While reading your review of the Sony DTC-75ES DAT recorder in the November 1990 issue, I came upon the following passage: "The first company to introduce DAT through authorized distribution channels in the U.S. was Sony Corporation ... late in June of this year [1990]." This did not sound quite right to me, so I went through my back issues of Audio and noted that your review of the Nakamichi 1000 DAT recording system in the November 1989 issue began: "To Nakamichi must go the credit for delivering to this country the first 'consumer' DAT recording system, despite the threats of litigation posed by certain record companies and the RIAA." Some authorized Nakamichi dealers in Southern California have been selling the 1000 DAT for over a year now. (My first audition was during the summer of 1989.) Now, I realize that things change fast in today's world, but the events of a mere year ago hardly qualify as ancient history by anybody's standards.

Despite the specter of a major lawsuit, Nakamichi took a considerable risk by introducing a DAT recorder in 1989.

You should give credit where credit is due and recognize that Nakamichi was indeed the first company to distribute a consumer DAT recorder through authorized distribution channels in this country.

-Ray Williams; North Hollywood, Cal.

And on the Eighth Day ...

Dear Editor:

You recently featured high-end record-playing systems on the covers of back-to-back issues (August and September 1990). Such publishing decisions must be presumed to bolster any argument for an ultimately benevolent creator.

Will the 16-bit digital format have any adherents 40 years hence? LPs are still preferred by many of us and have been since 1950, roughly. Down with paint-by-numbers digital and up with fragile, inconvenient analog.

Audio is not ignoring those of us who believe the digital domain is a contraventive one for music reproduction, specifically for unamplified acoustic instruments. Sure, digital will improve, much as modern polyester fabrics more closely approach natural fibers in feel and texture. Thanks for your continuing coverage of analog hardware.

-John Hallenborg; New York, N.Y.

(Source: Audio magazine, 03/1991)

= = = =