Slashdot Mirror
Hearing Aid Business Under Pressure From Consumer Electronics
HughPickens.com writes: There's good news for aging Americans who may have damaged their hearing by attending one too many rock concerts when they were young. Andrew Pollack writes at the NYT that the consumer electronics industry is encroaching on the hearing aid business, offering products that are far less expensive and available without the involvement of audiologists or other professionals. The new devices are forcing a re-examination of the entire system for providing hearing aids, which critics say is too costly and cumbersome, hindering access to devices vital for the growing legions of older Americans. "The audiology profession is obviously scared, for good reason, right now," says Abram Bailey.
Hearing aids cost an average of nearly $2,400 each, or close to $5,000 a pair, according to a White House advisory group, and Medicare does not pay for them, nor do most insurers. By contrast, the consumer devices are not regulated and sell for a few hundred dollars apiece, at most. Hearing aid manufacturers say that diagnosing and treating hearing loss is too complex for consumers to do using consumer devices, without the aid of a professional. But sound amplifiers have been around for years and they are growing in sophistication, taking advantage of signal processing chips developed for phones, Bluetooth headsets and computers. The devices include the Smart Listening System from Soundhawk, which sells at $400 for a single ear; the Bean from Etymotic Research, at $300; the CS50+ from Sound World Solutions at $350; and the Crystal Ear from NeutronicEar, at $545. "To me it was a reasonable investment to experiment with," says Ira Dolich, 81, who bought the Soundhawk device, which he can adjust by himself using his smartphone. "I've been pretty pleased with it," he said.
Hearing aids cost an average of nearly $2,400 each, or close to $5,000 a pair, according to a White House advisory group, and Medicare does not pay for them, nor do most insurers. By contrast, the consumer devices are not regulated and sell for a few hundred dollars apiece, at most. Hearing aid manufacturers say that diagnosing and treating hearing loss is too complex for consumers to do using consumer devices, without the aid of a professional. But sound amplifiers have been around for years and they are growing in sophistication, taking advantage of signal processing chips developed for phones, Bluetooth headsets and computers. The devices include the Smart Listening System from Soundhawk, which sells at $400 for a single ear; the Bean from Etymotic Research, at $300; the CS50+ from Sound World Solutions at $350; and the Crystal Ear from NeutronicEar, at $545. "To me it was a reasonable investment to experiment with," says Ira Dolich, 81, who bought the Soundhawk device, which he can adjust by himself using his smartphone. "I've been pretty pleased with it," he said.
Congress will be banning cheap hearing devices. That's the American way.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But wait... these are being used as medical devices! You can't make them better and cheaper over time, the government regulators say so!!!
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
I've been saying this for years but no one ever listens to me.
Analog is still better. Lots of older people complain the digital hearing aids suck even after tweaking and all that. I have had my (fir/1)st digital bone conduction hearing aid since last summer. I hate it. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Hearing aid manufacturers say that diagnosing and treating hearing loss is too complex for consumers to do using consumer devices, without the aid of a professional.
So we're too stupid to say, "yep, putting this amplifier in my ear makes me hear better"?? These charlatans need to be put out of business.
Problem is this is only temporary. Turning up the volume only continues to damage the ear nerves and hairs. Im waiting for implants that bypass this 'organic' ear and go direct to brain.
What did you say?
A lot of the "consumer devices" nowadays have very poor audio quality.
A lot of the "consumer devices" nowadays have very poor audio quality.
So what? If you can pay $200 for a hearing test, $200 for a consumer aid, and have a bad consumer aid that works for $400 instead of NOT BEING ABLE TO PAY FOR a high-quality hearing aid, it's still a net win for you and for society as a whole.
Here's a link:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/0...
I'm not sure about the frequency distribution, range or amplification. It not likely a miniature device, perhaps like those old fashioned devices that people hung on their shirt or coat, but, who knows, some good guys could help him out to miniaturize it. Kick starter any one?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Here's a link:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/0...
I'm sure it's not a small, in ear device, as it uses external ear buds, more like those old fashioned devices that hung from a shirt or coat. Not sure about its frequency range, frequency distribution or amplification. Someone might like to help the kid miniaturize his device. Kick Starter, anyone?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
I believe this is because diagnosis is important.
Just stuffing an amplifier in your ear is problematic.
Conductive hearing loss can (and should be) medically or surgically corrected, where possible, rather than just amplifying the input noises.
Sensorineural hearing loss are cause by problems in the cochlea and inner ear. This type of hearing loss can result in "band pass" loss, and in the most profound cases, is treatable with implants, if there is still functional cochlear structure. You don't want to treat it with amplification, since you don't want to amplify the bands in which there is no loss, since you'll cause damage there. Tinnitus generally falls into this bucket as well (your *really* do not want to amplify within the bands where you have that!).
Mixed hearing loss is a combination of the first two; it's typically cause by overpressure, such as being near a load explosion or other structurally damaging event that results in both conductive and sensorineural deficits.
A CAPD (Central Auditory Processing Disorder) hearing loss means that the mechanical system are generally intact, but that the information processing doesn't happen within the brain. IT's like having an audio processing system, and yanking the DSP out of it.
Personally, if I had partial damage, I'm going to spend the money on the expensive hearing aides. If I have some function, there's no reason to cook it by amplifying the frequencies that are actually getting through, rather than those which are not.
And even if you amplify only the frequencies that are getting mechanically dropped -- assuming it's conductive loss from damage, scar tissue, etc. -- you should be careful of harmonics, since those frequencies can additively lead to a problem as well.
Put it another way.... say you needed an artificial arm ...would you probably wouldn't run down to the nearest street fair and buy a "Toysmith 6135 Galaxy Grabber Robot Claw", merely because it was a cheaper commercially available alternative.
The days of just an amplifier are pretty well long gone. The best ones do a number of things:
1) Multi-band compression. Compression is reducing the difference between the highest and lowest sounds, and a multi-band compressor does it different amounts for different frequency ranges. Basically an advanced kind f equalization that levels things out, which helps you hear quiet stuff but not get overwhelmed by loud stuff.
2) Frequency remapping. For hardcore cases of high frequency hearing loss those frequencies can be remapped to lower, still audible frequencies.
3) Microphone steering. The mics can steer in on conversation and reject background noise pretty effectively. This makes things much more audible in most situations for most people.
4) Device interfacing. Hearing aids can automatically work with most land lines and cellphones. It isn't via their mic, they do it via induction and so on.
In particular the first two are the ones you tend to need an audiologist for. You get someone to measure your hearing and see where you are deficient and how much, and then design compression curves to counteract that as best as possible.
That doesn't mean the devices couldn't and shouldn't be cheaper, but there's a reason for a professional to be involved.
Hard to tell
Yes, diagnosis can be very important. I learned that during a year-long stint calibrating audiometers and tympanometers in the offices of both hearing instrument practitioners and audiologists. I also learned that some tests are very short and rudimentary; most often these are what customers get at the 'blow it out the door' hearing aid places. Most audiololgists, (and the good, competent HIP's), do in-depth testing that can diagnose problems and potential problems that might otherwise not be found.
So, in short, I agree with everything you said, and you know a lot more about hearing loss than I do. I also know that there's a degree of sophistication in modern hearing aids that simply can't be had really cheaply, both because of manufacturing costs, and because of a significant amount of original research - even in materials science.
Having said that, I still have a strong impression that hearing aids are very much over-priced. And I know that the testing equipment, (audiometers in particular), are also very over-priced. The whole industry is ripe for some major disruption, and I suspect the encroachment of cheap consumer devices is only the thin edge of the wedge.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I recently helped an elderly family member get tested, fitted, etc for hearing aids at an audiology office. Sure, it seems like a lot of money. But the $2,400 covers the hearing aid for three years of whatever you might happen to do to it. That breaks down to $800 per year, or less than $70 per month (per ear). That's less than a cable bill, and less than what most people - even elderly drivers - spend on gas for their cars for a month.
That said, there is one health care plan that does cover hearing aids 100% that I am aware of - the VA. I know several people who have gotten their hearing aids for free through them and they've been very happy with it.
Several health insurance plans also offer a small rebate to the customer after they purchase them. The same elderly family member I mentioned before got $500 back from these, and is eligible to do that every 3 years. While I'm not in need of them myself I believe my health insurance plan has a similar arrangement.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I went to a concert last year and left early into the show because the music was way. too. fucking. loud.
It's one thing to have loud music but this was literally painful.
Hearing aid manufacturers say that diagnosing and treating hearing loss is too complex for consumers to do using consumer devices, without the aid of a professional.
No-one, and I mean NO one can know how my ears sound to me better than me! There is a good chance that my being at a docs because loss of hearing over time is: a) because of loud music messing my shit, b) something treatable, c) genetic.
if (b), great fix it, else gimmee the cheaper option.
Having said that, I still have a strong impression that hearing aids are very much over-priced. And I know that the testing equipment, (audiometers in particular), are also very over-priced. The whole industry is ripe for some major disruption, and I suspect the encroachment of cheap consumer devices is only the thin edge of the wedge.
While I know people who would almost literally kill for a hearing aid that actually fit their ear, didn't cause traction soreness, but didn't fall out...
Yes, they tend to be overpriced. All of it.
The hearing aids themselves are considered prosthetic devices, even if you just stuff them in your ear, and there's huge regulatory compliance issues surrounding that. Even though they tend not to be covered by insurance for purchase, there's a lot of insurance that goes into the things because of that: liability insurance on the part of the manufacturer (what if you have a degenerative source of hearing loss, and, through no fault of theirs, your hearing continues to deteriorate, and you sue?).
There's also liability costs for the testing devices, for the same reason (What if it's not calibrated?), and then there's malpractice costs.
Most medical things end up paying an insurance company 5+ times or more for the same event; the audiologist gets off with only 3/4 payments (if they have their own office, there's liability insurance for ice on the sidewalk...).
We're not very tolerant of medical things going wrong, and we tend to be pretty litigious when they do. I think that before anything useful happens in terms of price reductions, we're going to have to get them umbrella'ed, just like other prosthetics (yes, eyeglasses and dentures tend to be separate, too!), and then we'll have to do something that will trigger tort reform, like single payer.
I'm not holding my breathe...
A CAPD (Central Auditory Processing Disorder) hearing loss means that the mechanical system are generally intact, but that the information processing doesn't happen within the brain. IT's like having an audio processing system, and yanking the DSP out of it.
I describe it as "dyslexia of the ear." People understand dyslexia interferes with understanding visually, but doesn't interfere with vision at all. Most people with APD will pass a regular hearing test just fine, but still have trouble hearing some things.
But, a hearing aid can help. One that cuts out high and low frequencies, keeping just the human-voice range, will improve the hearing of an APD sufferer, as the extraneous inputs are pre-filtered, so as to lower the confusion in the brain in sorting out and processing the remaining sound.
Personally, if I had partial damage, I'm going to spend the money on the expensive hearing aides. If I have some function, there's no reason to cook it by amplifying the frequencies that are actually getting through, rather than those which are not.
Some of the cheap ones have all the features of the expensive ones, and do it as well or better than the expensive ones. They just haven't paid the big bucks for the certifications.
Learn to love Alaska
I got my hearing aids in December. It turns out my hearing is close to normal in the lower frequencies but falls off steeply in the higher frequencies. With the aids I am better able to understand women's high pitched voices and things like birds chirping. I could have lived without them but they improve my life a bit. My employee sponsored insurance covered about half the cost so I ended up paying a little over $2K. That included a device called a SurfLink that has built in Bluetooth to hook up to cell phones and to control the aids volume and sound profile. I can change them for listening to live music, being outdoors where wind noise can be a problem or the standard program. There are other programs I have had loaded too. The SurfLink has a built in microphone that can be set to surround or directional mode. In a meeting I can put it across the room so I can hear people on the other side better or in a noisy restaurant I can hand it to my dinning partner . The aids also have a warranty that include no-questions-asked replacement the first time if you lose or destroy them.
The hearing aids are the behind the ear kind with speaker that snakes around the front of the ear and into the ear canal. The earbud is perforated so the natural sound still comes through and they just enhance the frequencies where I'm deficient.
So I would say if you want a hearing aid that matches the pattern of your hearing loss you're going to have to get an audiologist involved but I agree the aids are on the expensive side. I'm a little ambivalent about how much I paid but since my health insurance covered half of the cost and I'll be retired in less than a year it was time to strike.
Costco sells the same hearing aids that you get for $5,000 at an audiologist, but they charge less than $1,000 for them. Consumer Reports recommends considering Costco as an alternative to the high prices normally charged by audiologists.
http://www.consumerreports.org...
"Audiologist courses online!"
Seriously? The very article tells me that even if I got a degree out of that worth more than toilet paper it wouldn't get me a Job...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Those hearing aids have like $20 worth of parts inside. If they weren't a "medical device" they would cost 1/10 of that.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Hearing aids cost an average of nearly $2,400 each, or close to $5,000 a pair
Just in case we're deaf -and- retarded.
Yes, they are. Because the electronics part is pretty damn cheap thanks to modern electronics - an ADC, DSP and DAC combination is stupidly cheap. Hell, people are surprised when they spend $2000 on an "audiophile DAC" that the actual chip itself... cost under $5.They're mass produced because every sound emitting device has one, and even stupidly high end ones that do 24bit/192kHz are cheap. Nevermind the "basic" 16bit/48kHz units (which really are all you need for practical purposes since there's few environments a normal person will be in that has more than 50-60 dB of dynamic range, and 16 bits gets you 96dB)
The DSP itself is fairly cheap because audio is fairly undemanding - with clock rates in the hundreds of MHz and audio output rates around 48kHz, trivial. DSP algorithms are fairly standard.
It's why those "not a hearing aid" devices sell for under $100 easily.
One of the other reasons they're popular is well, you get a lot of people who won't admit to having hearing problems, so they won't want to see a doctor about it, but they can go and buy these things so cheaply that are so tiny and are practically invisible. (Face it - when we see hearing aid, we remember the big clunky things that you needed Dumbo-sized ears to hide, while the "not-a-hearing-aid" ads all tout how you might accidentally swallow them thinking they're pills.
Put it another way.... say you needed an artificial arm ...would you probably wouldn't run down to the nearest street fair and buy a "Toysmith 6135 Galaxy Grabber Robot Claw", merely because it was a cheaper commercially available alternative.
Actually, there have been a number of articles right here on /. about people getting cheap 3D printed prosthetics that they report work better for them than the outrageously expensive ones the FDA likes.
Simple principle, if it costs more than you have, it doesn't exist for any practical purpose. This seems to be beyond the FDA's comprehension.
And yet somehow, everyone and his dog manages to make dirt cheap and very loud MP3 players without a single concern for any of that.
I worked as a commercial director for a hearing aid company for 6 months.
We made margins of 80% (i.e. 5 x cost) on the aids, which for the most part were govt subsidised. Our audiologists would only prescribe our govt approved aids, and didn't have any incentive to look at the cheaper models.
A properly fitted aid needs three visits to the audiologist. Very few patients went to all three visits, and the majority of people who were prescribed aids discontinued their use within one year, mostly for vanity, but also because a hearing aid can only do so much for you.
We telemarketed our hearing aids to anyone over 50, inviting them in for free hearing tests. I personally had tests too, and was within the range whereby I would qualify for a hearing aid, although I have never experienced any problems in normal communication, in loud bars, or in any other situation, and this was 7 years ago.
So I can confirm that, yes, hearing aids are far too expensive and regularly sold to people who don't need them.
I hope this will also lead to improvements in consumer devices for people without hearing impairment. I am always jealous when I see what an elegant device my father's hearing aid is. All the Bluetooth headsets that I have tried, even at the very high end, are extremely clumsy beasts in comparison. If the experience from lower-end hearing aids trickles down to high-end Bluetooth headsets, that will improve my life considerably.
sounds like the industry cashcow has dried up. cant wait for the claims that nonmedical hearing aids may cause hearing loss because they arent certified.
something akin to sysadmins being replaced by outsourcing/visa workers.
baz
Indeed. It is a bit like people that self-prescribe contact-lenses. That is not a good idea at all and can have very serious negative consequences, as the regular checks you should do are there to catch problems before the patient notices. AFAIK, the results were generally so bad that you cannot get lenses without a prescription in the US.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
In the EU, they have relatively low maximum noise levels, required by law. You can set many of them to US though, and then are able to deafen yourself again. I know, because sometimes I hear music over sound-dampening earplugs (-35dB) if some environmental noise really annoys me. With EU settings, not a chance. US settings will happily deliver something that is loud even in this situation.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I checked the mentioned Soundhawk product site.
To me it feels like an interesting product to those who hear (fully capable) on one ear, but not at all on the other (e.g. from birth on). I have friends that are in this situation and they are always struggling heavily in loud social situations like restaurants, parties or lots of kids etc due to lack of spatial hearing. They always have to choose seats at a certain end and side of the table to be able to somehow participate. It's the background noise problem.
Conventional hearing aid for the "good" ear do not specifically adress the topic (and they only need an aid in specific situations, so easy in and out is a topic) and for the "bad" ear neither because it's completely disfunctional.
I think largely it comes down to this: The hearing aid you can have is better than the one you can't have because you can't afford it.
Huh! It's $5k for that hearing aid! "What did you say? Did I hear you right? Speak clearly so that I can understand you"
My Uncle got hearing aids, but he always turned them off so that he couldn't hear my aunt complain or order him around. He said, it was the best invention
he ever had and that the "off" switch was great!
I was interested to read in the article, "Medicare does not pay for them, nor do most insurers".
How is this even possible? You have overpriced healthcare in the USA, and then even if you have insurance, it won't pay for the treatment you need?!
Just for those people that think the NHS is a terrible thing, I'll just leave this here - hearing diagnosis, treatment, and aids are free on the NHS in the UK for people that need them...
-- Pete.
Monochrome - Probably the UK's largest internet BBS
and Medicare does not pay for them, nor do most insurers.
No, why would insurance pay for something which is medically necessary or might improve the quality of a person's life. You're only paying to them to do. . . well, I'm not really sure what we're paying insurance companies to do. They never want to pay for anything, always making you pay and pay and pay, then pay some more.
Insurance companies. We're like the mafia, only legal.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The smart company will hire Garret Morris to be their Shoutsperson.
Hearing aid manufacturers say that diagnosing and treating hearing loss is too complex for consumers to do using consumer devices, without the aid of a professional.
Yep of course it is! we must protect our very lucrative profit centers selling $40.00 devices for $4500
I have disassembled old broken hearing aids, they are not that complex. they intentionally lock people out of the dsp so you cant adjust it yourself.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
lots of people loose function as they age; trivializing what is a severe handicap is insensitive
it is like saying, to bad if you get cancer cause you ate badly as a teenager
PS: as someone with aged parents, I hope the hearing aid mfrs and audiologists wind up homeless; they are the worst scum on earth
Part of the cost is the lavish trips that manufacturers give to audiologists and Hearing Instrument Specialists who sell their products, the kind of exotic vacations where you have a seminar for one morning out of a week-long stay in a tropical resort. (Not taxed as income for the audiologists, either.)
Doctors used to get these, but now it's typically dinner at a nice restaurant in exchange for listening about the latest devices/medications. Audiologists are still at the trough and saying that they aren't being influenced.
"Hearing aid manufacturers say that diagnosing and treating hearing loss is too complex for consumers to do using consumer devices, without the aid of a professional."
Translation: "Protect our wildly lucrative business model!!"
Yeah, OF COURSE hearing aid manufacturers would say that, and in a few specific instances they may be right. But in the vast majority of cases it's bullshit.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I lost my balance and hearing in one ear. I have a wireless hearing aid that sends the sound entering the bad ear and then my brain figures out that it's on that side. works great.
nothing to see here - move along
If you're nearsighted, and want to buy glasses in the US, you need a prescription, and your glasses will be expensive. If you're farsighted, you can go to any drug store, and pick up a pair of glasses for $5. (Naturally, getting the correct prescription, particularly if both eyes have different requirements will cost about the same as those nearsighted glasses.)
I suppose the difference is that nearsighted people are generally getting the sort of glasses they'll wear all day. But the cheap reading glasses you can buy at a drugstore are generally just for reading, and thus not worn full-time.
There is a workaround, though -- buy from China. There are many options where you can buy glasses online, with whatever strength you wish, without the need for an official prescription. I suggest hearing aids will do in a similar direction -- it will remain true that the ideal fit, and the best quality comes from visiting a doctor, getting a proper prescription, and having the product adjusted to fit you by a professional. But, for a significantly lower price, you can get a similar product that will do a good enough job, but leave you on your own to work out the details.
https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/s320x320/e15/11243875_931372583551096_1025337476_n.jpg
Actually, not really. Thanks to modern electronics, and smartphones in particular, the pieces you need are stupidly cheap. At the most basic level, you need a microphone, an ADC, a DSP, a DAC, and a speaker. the ADC and DAC are often one unit and cost only around $2 or so, while the DSP might cost $10 or less. The microphone and speaker themselves are fairly cheap parts too (couple bucks each) . They're basically the same set of components you find in a smartphone, and audio level ADCs and DACs are so mass produced that they're small cheap and plentiful. And low power.
The DSP software also uses pretty standard algorithms created for mobile and other industries. Even the packaging technology of flat flex PCBs is cheap. Sure there's some 3D envelope designing required to fit the form factor, but yeah, modern EDA tools support 3D designs as well.
The reality is, a modern hearing aid, and the "not a hearing aid" devices are likely quite similar inside, if not identical. The raw electronics themselves are fairly cheap which is why the "not a hearing aid" devices can be hand for $100 or so. Real hearing aids are probably manufactured identically, with the difference being insurance, certification, etc.
I went to an audiologist, who spent some time running hearing tests on me. This included a bone conduction test, and a check to see if amplification worked, but nothing more sophisticated. There was no attempt to find band pass loss, or to exempt my tinnitus. I got a smooth amplification curve, high frequencies being boosted much more than low.
I spent the money on the expensive aids, but I have enough money that it wasn't a problem. I have a friend who had serious hearing loss and just couldn't scare up $2K to deal with it. If I needed an artificial arm, I wouldn't go for the cheapo commercial alternative, but I have friends who would have to, or go armless.
I think it would be far better to have low-end alternatives than to require everyone to spend kilobucks or go without.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I worked on the firmware for the Soundhawk.. nice to see it mentioned. Uses a CSR8670 chip - a pretty decent chip which does practically everything imaginable (radio, CPU, DSP, battery charging, analog, soup-to-nuts) in a single tiny wafer-scale BGA - however I thoroughly un-recommend it to anyone as it forces you to use (it's a custom CPU core, there's no other option) one of the worst and most annoying IDEs yet devised, and I'm including "punched cards" and "setting CPU opcodes with toggle switches". The debugger's idea of helping you diagnose an error is to pop up a dialog saying "Lost connection to target" and inviting you to reboot it. {Shudders at the memories}
Yes, getting contact lenses without medical assistance is dangerous, because the lenses can have serious ill effects on their own. Leave the lenses in too long and the cornea will get too little oxygen, prompting blood vessels to grow into the cornea, causing legal blindness*. In grad school, my vision prof had this. He could tell light from dark, but told us not to bother raising our hands because it wouldn't do any good, and carried Braille lecture notes.
As long as there's loudness caps, hearing aids aren't going to do anything this bad. It's possible that they could irritate the ear canal, but that's not anywhere near that bad. Even perforating the eardrum would be much preferable to capillaries in the cornea. This is not a valid comparison.
*For any of you out there dumb enough to believe in Intelligent Design as a faux-scientific gloss on Creationism, explain the human eye. It looks to me more like the product of Stupid Design.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Put it another way.... say you needed an artificial arm ...would you probably wouldn't run down to the nearest street fair and buy a "Toysmith 6135 Galaxy Grabber Robot Claw", merely because it was a cheaper commercially available alternative.
It's funny you use the artificial arm as your example. There are a lot of news stories of people building hands or arms for people using 3D printers for much lower costs than the medical ones cost. It is basically the same thing. Either the kid has to do without, or someone with a 3D printer makes a hand for him and he functions very well. But we don't want that, do we? Not enough money going into the 1%ers pockets!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Some of the cheap ones have all the features of the expensive ones, and do it as well or better than the expensive ones. They just haven't paid the big bucks for the certifications.
Such as which ones? How does one program their frequency response profile to match the gap in my hearing?
But size matters!
In a typical in-ear unit, the entire volume of the device (DAC+amp+microphone+speaker+circuit board) is less than 1/2 a cubic cm, smaller than a regular DAC chip by itself. Those are ones that cost 3 grand per ear.
Trying to fit all these components into such a tiny volume is really tricky engineering, and requires assembly under a microscope.
If you don't mind one of the old-fashioned kind that hang around your neck like an iPod, then it could be make dirt cheap.
Some of the cheap ones have all the features of the expensive ones, and do it as well or better than the expensive ones. They just haven't paid the big bucks for the certifications.
Such as which ones? How does one program their frequency response profile to match the gap in my hearing?
Exactly this problem.
The answer is: You don't program it. While most cell phone baseband chips would not have any problem with the SDR being used to receive radio stations, you will be hard put to find a cell phone that uses them this way, because, despite the parts being there, there's no way to get them programmed up to the correct specification being exposed as part of the product definition.
Make things louder? Yes. Match the correct frequency response profile? Possible in hardware; impossible in software.
I happen to work at a printing company that makes "marketing materials" (junk mail) for one particular brand of hearing aid.
We crank this spam out at the average rate of half a million per week, every week.
Tell me that that don't cost plenty!
You don't actually own the hearing aids, you license them. I discovered this when my father died and I wanted to have his $2K each hearing aids refitted for me. I was flatly told by the audiologist that he could not do that because the manufacturer did not allow it.
I wound up giving them to a charity that provided hearing aids for the disadvantaged.
That is insane. The actual cost is more like 1/10th of that.
So - vote for a sane health policy.
And don't buy insurance once you do have a sane health policy.
By the seven meaty balls of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Sauce be upon Them), have you people learned nothing since you ran away from the mother country?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Ok, there's something to be said for helping the elderly.
But over the long term, this isn't going to fix the problem.
Hearing loss in children today is 30% higher then it was in the 1990's in the Western world. That's huge! Worse, it's been known for decades that people from industrialized societies have measurable hearing loss compared to primitive peoples even by the age of 18.
We have an enormous problem with noise in our modern societies, and treating the symptoms isn't going to effect a cure.
We need to be putting other businesses under pressure.
DJs, restaurants, nightclubs, bands, construction companies, factories, and so forth need to be under the same pressure to use and adopt consumer electronics that can help prevent the damage from happening in the first place.
We have the ability to build reasonably inexpensive equipment to measure sound levels. From that starting point, we can build equipment to help prevent hearing loss from happening, by making it easy to detect potentially dangerous exposure.
There should be big LED panels in every restaurant or nightclub or similar setting that show sound level measurements to customers. Every DJ and band should have a reliable sound level meter, and know how to use it. Procedures need to be worked out to effectively make good sound level measurements, since sound is a wave phenomenon with constructive and destructive interference, and reflections and absorption, so sound can vary considerably from point to point. This may also require that we need to be keeping people away from speakers (perhaps putting them in a high ceiling instead of next to a dance floor, for example).
The police should have portable units designed to allow the sound level measurement be admissible in court, should be routinely be checking sound levels in places like nightclubs, and should be charging operators/managers/djs/bands etc with battery when they are violating the limits. Since nightclubs and restaurants are workplaces as well, the laws on employee safety in the workplace are also applicable.
But that isn't enough. We need individual protection.
Cell phones should have sound level measures running whenever they're turned on (sampling at some reasonable rate), and track total exposure throughout the day, with warnings for the user when they run past some reasonable limits. Same for cars. Every stereo system sold or installed on a commercial basis (such as in a car, or a home stereo, or amplified speakers) should be required to have similar technology. Headphones for ipods and tablets should also support measuring sound levels, perhaps with something to notify parents as well. And so forth...
The sound issue isn't just a hearing damage issue. Modern studies show that some forms of environmental noise are linked to a whole host of health issues, including noise at surprisingly low levels (e.g. the HYENA study). Consumer electronics can and should be used to measure noise transmission in buildings, so this information is available when buying a house or renting. We already have much tighter building standard for heating and cooling, but those standards need to be extended to older buildings, possibly meaning that they have to be re-built (excepting those of historical significance), and the electronics for sound measurement can be used to check that the new construction meets more rational standards.