Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lee Buckalew]

Lee, thanks for responding, all good points.

As for our installation, the listeners aren't within the recommended 10 to 12 feet separation of the guitar player.

The other really big deal: the hearing aids are tailored to individual hearing losses so using the loop system still accommodates all those adjustments the audiologist has applied to that particular appliance.  I suspect that's why the users rave about the quality of sound.

My point here isn't that a loop system is an end-all solution. It isn't. But in some areas (such as our sanctuary) it's a great improvement. I'm told in many places in Europe, loop systems are now government mandated. As I see it, for $900 (plus volunteer installation labor) if it attracts even one person to the worship facility, their donations likely paid for it in a short time.

I just think considering those who have poor hearing really is a necessity and we have had poor luck with our RF system. So I threw this out mainly to get people thinking. I do know many churches make no accommodation for hearing impaired people, with the uneducated opinion I suppose that louder will make it better.

Ken

Ken,
My son has a complete hearing loss in one ear and uses a hearing aid. 
Yes, many modern hearing aids are custom programmed, somewhat, to the hearing loss of the individual wearer.  Cochlear implants often have a telecoil built in as well.  They can be utilized with an installed loop or a neck loop on an FM receiver.  They can even plug directly from a receiver.  I am quite familiar with many of the ins and outs of the various systems. 

     You had asked why they were not more popular here and a number of people answered with various reasons.  Please understand that I am not answering to argue with your reasons for choosing an installed loop but to point out issues that need to be considered by others who may be reading this now or in the future as they consider options for assisted listening systems.

     A church certainly could do as you have done if they do not have a need or want for ADA compliance.  Having volunteer help certainly keeps the cost down as well. 
Do you have receivers for your loop system for those hearing impaired persons who do not wear hearing aids?

     For spaces that require or wish to have ADA compliance a loop system is far more expensive than an FM option.  Due to the complexity of a loop system in large scale modern construction they typically require phased loop installation.
     With FM you can still provide loop capability and there are now systems that change there EQ settings based on whether they have an earpiece or a loop plugged into the receiver unit. 
   


Lee

[Ken Cross]

  Having volunteer help certainly keeps the cost down as well. 
Do you have receivers for your loop system for those hearing impaired persons who do not wear hearing aids?

     For spaces that require or wish to have ADA compliance a loop system is far more expensive than an FM option.  Due to the complexity of a loop system in large scale modern construction they typically require phased loop installation.
     With FM you can still provide loop capability and there are now systems that change there EQ settings based on whether they have an earpiece or a loop plugged into the receiver unit. 
   

Lee

I wish we have more loop receivers. They have much better sound than our old RF system.  Additional loop receivers are $100 each. We already had the old Gentner RF system in place but I have to tweak each receiver every few months just to keep it on frequency, and they are touchy.

Ken

[Johan Liderud]

This is a nice video regards hearing assist systems.
In Sweden this is close to mandatory in churches.


https://youtu.be/WgaPxSX8S8I

[Lee Buckalew]

This is a nice video regards hearing assist systems.
In Sweden this is close to mandatory in churches.


https://youtu.be/WgaPxSX8S8I

Very misleading and stacked against RF systems. 
Both RF and Loop technology are simply means of broadcasting a signal. 

Both systems utilize equipment that is outside of the hearing aid although the presenter states that this is only true of the RF or IR systems.  In reality both offer direct personal telecoil capability which is creating a loop that is with the listener wherever they move.  It is not tied to the listener being inside a looped area. 
RF systems offer exceptional sound quality (as can loop systems) with different DSP based on whether there is a telecoil loop or an earphone connected to the unit (not true of any loop systems that I am aware of).  There is no user adjustment required for this DSP change.

Both systems require current consumption although the presenter states that there is no current consumption with a loop system/telecoil.  I am sure that he meant additional current consumption of a receiver but the slide presentation was misleading.   

The significantly higher cost of a loop system was not discussed.  The inability to provide a loop for events such as large scale concerts in temporary settings, classrooms that reorient with changing layouts per session, other gathering areas where people must move about. 

Loops are not THE answer they are AN answer.  They fit some situations well but don't work effectively in others. 

The plus here is that people are considering how to better accommodate persons with hearing loss.  It is at the same time unfortunate that the focus seems to only be on those with hearing aids while, at least in the US, at least 2/3 of persons with hearing loss do not use hearing aids.  This means that the majority of potential users of an assisted listening system still require a receiver pack and some type of earphone whether the system in use is RF, IR or Loop.

Lee

[Ken Cross]

Very misleading and stacked against RF systems. 
Both RF and Loop technology are simply means of broadcasting a signal. 

Both systems utilize equipment that is outside of the hearing aid although the presenter states that this is only true of the RF or IR systems.  In reality both offer direct personal telecoil capability which is creating a loop that is with the listener wherever they move.  It is not tied to the listener being inside a looped area. 
RF systems offer exceptional sound quality (as can loop systems) with different DSP based on whether there is a telecoil loop or an earphone connected to the unit (not true of any loop systems that I am aware of).  There is no user adjustment required for this DSP change.

Both systems require current consumption although the presenter states that there is no current consumption with a loop system/telecoil.  I am sure that he meant additional current consumption of a receiver but the slide presentation was misleading.   

The significantly higher cost of a loop system was not discussed.  The inability to provide a loop for events such as large scale concerts in temporary settings, classrooms that reorient with changing layouts per session, other gathering areas where people must move about. 

Loops are not THE answer they are AN answer.  They fit some situations well but don't work effectively in others. 

The plus here is that people are considering how to better accommodate persons with hearing loss.  It is at the same time unfortunate that the focus seems to only be on those with hearing aids while, at least in the US, at least 2/3 of persons with hearing loss do not use hearing aids.  This means that the majority of potential users of an assisted listening system still require a receiver pack and some type of earphone whether the system in use is RF, IR or Loop.

Lee

As you said, Lee, it depends on the venue. My real interest in this was to get people thinking. We have had great success with our loop system. Granted it doesn't help those without a t-coil equipped hearing aid. In our case, we already had an RF system for those folks. I do find it interesting how many people refuse to use the RF system. I asked one of our members if she wanted to try (the RF system) and her comment was "No, I heard those things are awful." Like most of our members, she wouldn't even try it. I think the problem is they don't want people to see them wear the headphone. There aren't many things we can do in such a case. 

One advantage of the loop system, no one needs to know you are using it. It's funny. We don't' refuse to wear a bandage if we get an injury. We wear glasses if we can't see without them, but hearing equipment seems to have a different attitude.

The best I can do is to provide the means for help and let people know it's out there. I can't figure out why anyone would come into worship unable to hear and not want to fix it.

Ken

[Milt Hathaway]

In our case, we already had an RF system for those folks. I do find it interesting how many people refuse to use the RF system. I asked one of our members if she wanted to try (the RF system) and her comment was "No, I heard those things are awful." Like most of our members, she wouldn't even try it. I think the problem is they don't want people to see them wear the headphone. There aren't many things we can do in such a case.

You could have saved a large amount of time and money stocking a few telecoil loops for those folks. You could have even sold a few to people who like to wear them under their clothing. Other than the vanity issue we've just addressed, I've never ever had a single person refuse to use the RF system. Most of them don't care what it is so long as it works.

Oh, and if your RF system really is "awful", then addressing that problem would have also been much cheaper and sensible in the long run.

[Lee Buckalew]

My real interest in this was to get people thinking.

Yes, this is often either an afterthought or simply a choice made for the cheapest possible solution that fulfills the ADA mandate.

I do find it interesting how many people refuse to use the RF system. I asked one of our members if she wanted to try (the RF system) and her comment was "No, I heard those things are awful." Like most of our members, she wouldn't even try it. I think the problem is they don't want people to see them wear the headphone. There aren't many things we can do in such a case. 

One advantage of the loop system, no one needs to know you are using it. It's funny. We don't' refuse to wear a bandage if we get an injury. We wear glasses if we can't see without them, but hearing equipment seems to have a different attitude.

The best I can do is to provide the means for help and let people know it's out there. I can't figure out why anyone would come into worship unable to hear and not want to fix it.

Ken

This is the more typical situation. 
First, an RF system does not need to sound bad.  Older systems without DSP and that tune with coils that drift are certainly problematic.  That is not necessary any longer. 

As far as being seen wearing a receiver or "no one needs to know you are using it". A receiver is necessary with either an FM or a Loop system if the person does not have a telecoil equipped hearing aid or cochlear implant.  About 66% of the people in the U.S. with hearing loss that affects their ability to understand speech do not have or use hearing aids.  For these people they must wear a receiver in order to use any ALD system. 
Education of those with hearing loss is a must in order to get this to happen. 

One significant problem has been how poor some of the systems are.  Most of the time this has to do with the source itself and the ratio of ambient sound to direct sound.  If systems sounded better to begin with then more people would use them.  This often means creating a specific mix for the ALD system and most venues with live sound do not have the budget to warrant that. 

There's a bit of catch 22 involved.

I am hoping that creative use of some newer technology will allow for some automixing of stage areas for ALD systems and increase the sound quality for all users.

Lee

[ProSoundWeb Community]