Thats also my experience with TV ears. They are uncomfortable when I use them.

So I bought a set of wired headphones and they work great but if I plug them into the TV they cut off the TV sounds so my wife can't hear the TV. I do use the headphones on my Mac for sound volume and clarity. Wonderful.
The best thing I discovered yesterday was I returned from a hearing appointment at Costco and while there he showed my that my I-phone has a sound broadcasting system built in. You just have to click the home button three times quickly and a new screen comes up showing a place to click on saying "Hearing Devices" and another saying "Magnifier"
When you do that it will show a place to click on saying 'Live Listen'. I then set my phone near the TV and I can go into another room and still hear the TV sound thru my hearing aids.

This system also has a volume control which you can change your hearing aid volume.
I'm assuming other phones have this same feature but it was totally new to me.

Thank you for that, Sailor.
I'd never heard of that brand before.

Do you mind stating which aids you presently have that use the compilot and how long since you purchased them? It would be interesting to know if products are available from Canada quicker and better than the US.
Maybe I'll have to take a drive up north and visit friends on Vancouver island. 👍

Thanks Rick.

Hi Floyd,
You're right. My aids works like that but I control the volume on my iPhone. Works great doesn't it?
Thanks

Hi Nimbushopper;
Thanks for the suggestion. I may have to investigate Starkey.
I normally buy my Hearing Aids from Costco but when I asked about this feature (A remote microphone) they told me my aids, even tho less than 2 years old, were not compatible for a remote microphone and I would have to buy new aids for about 1900.00 a pair and add 250.00 to get a remote microphone.
Seems to me we are being held up by the hearing aid industry. A little improvement one year and spend 2000.00 to get a 'little' improvement. This is a scam I'm very familiar with and I don't want to keep getting it in the shorts every few years.
Costco has normally been my go to place for aids as they cost about 50% of the price most audiologists charge for a pair of aids. If my present aids are able to receive bluetooth speech right now from my iPhone, why do I need another device from the manufacturer to do what my aids are capable of right now?

I would just like to spend the 250.00 and buy a microphone as you describe without having to buy a new pair of hearing aids? I called Crutchfield as they sell microphones and they knew of no one who sold microphones that would do what I want.

I'm beginning to think that Costco should policy price the additional microphones as in a crowded environment regular aids are worthless. That is, unless you're standing right next to the person you need to talk to.

I sure appreciate your comments.
Best
Alex

As background I should say many of my hearing problems have been brought about by employers wanting their helicopters to appear as if anyone could be around them in normal dress. As I was responsible to maintain the 'birds' while on demo flights around the world they didn't want people to see me wear a set of 'ear muffs' I was also 23 and bulletproof.
Now for the problem:
I have to wear hearing aids as I'm in my 70s but they don't filter out most of the background noise. On the Iphone when I use it, the phone broadcasts the phone voice via bluetooth. Now, all of a sudden I can hear again. Not perfect but at least 200% better than just holding the crappy speaker in the land line phone or iPhone up to my ear.

I just attended a session on fire and defensible space around homes (maybe 100 people in attendance) and was able to hear the instructors words only about 10% of the time. Pretty frustrating!
So I figured, maybe someone on UHH has experienced something similar and came up with a device/microphone that I could lay on a desk near the speaker and have it transmit voices thru a bluetooth signal so I can hear thru my hearing aids.

I sure would appreciate any and all comments. Thanks
Alex

I still have to hand wash ours. Never had a chicken who learned to wipe its butt.

Never can understand how those darn birds can turn so many worms/bugs/grass into such a good tasting egg!

After reading the story about Dualit toasters I was amazed. It's not made in the land of sH#t quality, China.
For that reason alone I'm going to buy one. Plus some of the positive comments here on UHH.

Some of the ones available on Amazons site are not that expensive.

Now, if Dualit can develop a quality French Press I'll buy that also...Oops, I know the British would never go that route, too controversial. Forget I said that.
Alex

Thats a great looking plate. Nice presentation.

OK, I have to ask, Whats in the glass??

Jerry;
From what I've heard all smooth top stoves require certain style pans/pots. Thin pans are supposedly a no-no. If you have to replace any of your existing pots or pans to use on a smooth top stove you may want to factor that into your decision.

This was on a site I googled.

Halogen Stoves. Halogen stoves often have a smooth top. The best kind of cookware to use with this kind of stove is metal with a thick bottom. If glass or rough-bottomed cookware is used, then dirt particles or blemishes on the glass bottoms of the pans can scratch the surface of the stove and damage the surface.

[quote=bodiebill]Like other commercial products that require government involvement it requires cooperation and good relations between the company and government.
Both have weaknesses. The government being too bureaucratic with no personal liability when things go wrong, and business too focused on cost reduction for maximum profit.

Bodiebill is exactly correct.
The agency in the FAA that certifies aircraft consists of Engineering and Quality in one entity. No matter what anyone says, because both departments report to the same head, the prevailing thoughts within the agency is always to help the other department finish the certification process by letting what are considered to be (at the time), insignificant problems to be corrected sometime later.

The fact is, once an aircraft receives its Type and Airworthiness certificate the rush to correct those little niggling problems move to the back burner within virtually every manufacturer.
Thats how the Flight Manual never was updated until after these accidents occurred.

The real world is that the Boeings and other industries are not accountable industries. They are made up of individuals. Those individuals are the ones that have made errors in the certification of the Max aircraft.
Of course the Northwest region of FAA is just as bad by employing those same individuals who used to work at Boeing as quality persons. Ask me how I know!

As a lifelong quality person in the aerospace industry and as one who was fired by 'upper management' in a large helicopter company when I threatened to go to the FAA about a safety issue which eventually caused two pilots to lose their lives, the reality is most people are not able to stand up to managements desire to kick an aircraft out the door. When I went to the FAA they didn't pursue an investigation as it was not something their own employees had uncovered so they weren't going to take a stand about Quality or the lack thereof at one of the companies they had approved to operate.

In the Max case, an individual at Boeing probably said "this is similar to the previous models we make, let's get it into the hands of the operators as quickly as we can".

Somewhere within Boeing an individual, not a corporation, dropped the ball by not making sure the new system was documented in the flight manuals. Then a person in the FAA certification office did not require a triple redundant sensor for this new system. The FAA just said OK. I suspect that during the 'official flight testing by FAA pilots' there was likely no disagreement between the two sensors so the system as designed did not require an aggressive action by the pilots to counteract the system pushing the nose down.

The FAA was likely being pushed by Boeing to approve the flight manuals. One person at Boeing did not have the wherewithal to stand up and say the flight manual is deficient!
These tragedies are most likely the result of a poor system design by a person at Boeing. Also someone at the FAA just kicked the can down the road by not included the system explanation in the flight manuals. A lack of training on the system by the airlines is a secondary cause.

Thanks for sharing Mark. It is incredible how matter of fact the vendors treat this train schedule.

You're trying to fool with us aren't you???
Or did spell check change college to collage?????

Funny in a weird way!!!

Nice to get a chuckle first thing.

As someone who used to hear very well, this reminds me of how I now translate words to fit what I believe was said. I experience many Faux pas!
Alex