In article <19970602024601.WAA16801 at ladder02.news.aol.com>,
rsiegel663 at aol.com (RSiegel663) wrote:
>> When you were tested with the aids on , were sounds presented and traced
> on the screen ? or were you looking at the programming screen, which
> shows an idealized representation of what the aid should be doing, not
> what YOUR ear is doing with this aid.The first time they were presented on the
screen. After that, the audiologist was just manipulating the 6 "pots".
>> Two weeks for the repair would indicate a full remake of the aid(s)? I
think it was. Also, when I got one of them back, it looked different.
The microphone is now in a different part of the plate, and it doesn't
have a little metal ring around it like the other one has. Also, the
battery seems to rub against the contact now. (I've been told that as
long as it works, it's OK.) Finally, whereas the shell was transparent
before (you could see all the circuitry clearly), it now looks like
there's some white "cloudy" material inside. What do you think? Is
> that correct? If so the impression and or fit problem is a big factor.
>> The ability to make shell and fit corrections in the office can make a big
> difference to the patient. Changes in the shell are easier when the ear
> is in front of you not just a shell with notes from the dispenser mailed
> back from the office.
>> Keep in mind the positive responses from the sucessful users. Don't give
>> Bob Siegel
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet