On Jun 25, 12:24 pm, Steve Parfitt <steve.parf...@sympatico.ca> wrote: Ken, Well, one example of the challenges faced by anyone (HoH or not) is described in the paper I mentioned. It says "The difference between "f" and "s," for example, is found entirely in the frequencies above 3 kHz; indeed, above the 3.3 kHz telephone bandwidth entirely" ... and then goes on to say that, for
On Jun 24, 12:01 pm, Steve Parfitt <steve.parf...@sympatico.ca> wrote: That's pretty much my situation now too. I can only understand simple or brief phone calls to people whose voices are familiar (even with the binaural headsets). And, yes, conference calls are torture at best. That reminds me of an interesting paper I came across recently (http://www.polycom.com/usa/en/suppor
Ken wrote: My old analogue Phonaks (now deceased) had four programs - the same as my new one (which is digital). The Freedom CI also has four programs. Digital certainly added some useful DSP possibilities but analogues had progressed to offer many of the features now available on digitals. But most aids today are digital and the performance of these, for a deafy, is indistinguishable
On Mar 28, 11:50 am, ray <spamm...@do.not.reply.com> wrote: Thanks to all who replied. The reason I ask is because I am trying to hear what difference a hearing aide would make. I am looking for a computer simulation of a hearing aide. The closest I have found is a graphic equalizer. Changing frequency response seems to make no difference in my being able to decipher what is being
On Mar 11, 6:11 pm, Ken <kkerri...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: In two threads I mentioned a voicemail to text service offered by Telstra. My son finally tried it out and it turns out to be a transcription service - they have someone (probably in India) listening to the voicemail and producing the text. Ah well............. The fact that Telstra has to resort to using a human transcriber
