Sound recordings were collected by our partner HearAdvisor using real hearing aids programmed for the standardized N3 sloping moderate hearing loss. That configuration was chosen because it is reasonably common and sits near the middle of the aided population. However, keep in mind that if you have more or less hearing loss, or a different pattern of hearing loss, HearAdvisor's audio samples will not be representative of the sound you would hear with hearing aids configured for your own unique hearing loss. Remember, nothing beats a real trial with real hearing aids.
Methodology
How We Test and Score Hearing Aids
)
)
Updated on Jul 30, 2026
:format(webp))
HearingTracker evaluates hearing aids in two complementary ways: standardized sound-performance testing conducted in HearAdvisor's acoustic laboratory, and hands-on wear-and-use testing conducted by our own review team. We test the latest prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs).
HearAdvisor’s laboratory procedures are published and designed to be repeatable. HearingTracker’s hands-on ratings follow the documented rubrics below, including defined rules for incomplete ratings and components that do not apply to a particular product. This page explains what the laboratory measures, what our reviewers rate, how the numbers combine into the scores you see on our review and comparison pages—and what those scores can and cannot tell you.
HearingTracker and HearAdvisor are separate companies that work closely together and share a founder and personnel; see Independence and funding below for the full disclosure.
HearAdvisor laboratory testing
Sound performance is measured in HearAdvisor’s purpose-built acoustic laboratory. The room has a measured ambient noise level of 35.7 dB LAeq and an average reverberation time (RT60) of 0.072 seconds. Eight loudspeakers arranged in a ring with a one-metre radius are individually equalized to within ±2 dB from 50 Hz to 15,000 Hz, and a KEMAR acoustic manikin fitted with IEC 60318-4 ear simulators sits at the center of the ring, wearing each device while standardized listening scenes play. Full details are in HearAdvisor’s laboratory setup documentation.
:format(webp))
Real-world spatial sound scenes
The listening scenes are built from spatially accurate ambisonic recordings produced in real acoustic spaces, including busy restaurants and office environments. Playing these scenes over the speaker ring reproduces the sound environments you might encounter in daily life—identically for every device tested—so results are directly comparable across products.
Test configuration
Devices are programmed for the Bisgaard N3 configuration, a standardized sloping moderate hearing loss ranging from 35 dB HL in the lower frequencies to 65 dB HL at 6 kHz. HearAdvisor selected this configuration because it is reasonably common, near the middle of the aided population, and potentially appropriate for both prescription and OTC devices.
Each device is measured in two configurations: an Initial Fit, established by following the manufacturer’s basic fitting process, and a Tuned Fit, adjusted using laboratory measurements to closely match defined NAL-NL2 prescriptive targets. HearAdvisor’s published success criterion for the Tuned Fit is an SII-weighted average absolute deviation of less than 5 dB across 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz, with no audible feedback. The exact device settings, receivers, and ear couplings used for each product are documented alongside its results.
:format(webp))
Understanding the SoundScore
The SoundScore is HearAdvisor's summary of laboratory sound performance. It is reported on a 0–5 scale, with 5.0 anchored to the top-performing device tested to date. It is price-blind: it reflects measured sound performance only. Five laboratory-derived performance metrics contribute, each with a fixed weight:
- Speech benefit in quiet and moderate environments (34%): the model-estimated improvement in speech intelligibility provided by the device in quiet and moderately noisy scenes. The single largest factor.
- Speech benefit in noisy environments (29%): the model-estimated improvement in speech intelligibility in loud, complex noise.
- Feedback handling (15%): how effectively the device resists audible squealing during two standardized feedback-challenge tests.
- Own-voice quality (12%): an acoustic estimate of how boomy or occluded a wearer's own voice may sound with the tested coupling.
- Streaming music quality (10%): the fidelity of audio streamed from your phone or other devices.
The component weights were derived from a survey in which 107 hearing aid consumers and 95 hearing care professionals ranked the importance of each dimension (methodology).
The survey assigned the greatest combined weight to the two speech-performance measures, which together account for 63% of the SoundScore. Own-voice quality and feedback handling carry real weight as well—a hearing aid that makes your own voice sound like you're talking inside a barrel, or that whistles when someone hugs you, can make consistent use more difficult. Streaming music is the smallest of the five components.
The published SoundScore weights the Initial Fit at 77% and the Tuned Fit at 23%. Those weights come from a separate survey of 257 hearing aid consumers about the importance of getting good sound with minimal effort—a proxy for how much the initial fit matters, not a measured estimate of how many users stay on their initial settings. The Initial Fit approximates what you would get by following the manufacturer's basic fitting process—it is not literally an untouched out-of-the-box state.
Because raw benefit scores cluster well below 5, HearAdvisor adds a single presentation offset—identical for every device—chosen so that the top performer in the tested catalog sits at exactly 5.0 (+1.1 at the time the methodology was published). This offset is a presentation choice to match consumer expectations for star-rating scales, not a scientific transformation: it never changes any product's ranking. If a new top performer emerges, the offset updates and every score shifts together.
:format(webp))
A SoundScore is a model-based estimate of expected sound performance for the tested configuration—device, settings, receiver, and coupling—for a user with the standardized N3 hearing-loss configuration. It is not a prediction of any individual's clinical outcome, and it does not factor in price, comfort, or features.
Limitations of laboratory results and recordings
- Fitting and coupling matter. Ear coupling and fitting settings can materially affect amplification, own-voice perception, streaming quality, feedback, and speech performance. Each published result applies to the specific device, settings, receiver, and coupling documented for the Initial and Tuned fittings. Results may differ with another dome, sleeve, vent, earmold, or program.
- One standardized hearing loss. The current procedure targets one standardized sloping moderate hearing loss, the N3 configuration. Results do not represent every audiogram, and they do not establish that a device—an OTC device especially—is appropriate for people with more severe hearing loss or a substantially different audiogram; a device that performs well for the standard loss may not provide adequate benefit for yours.
- Recordings illustrate; they don't predict. The audio samples are recorded on a measurement manikin with standardized fittings. They are useful for comparing devices under identical conditions, but they cannot reproduce exactly what a person with hearing loss will perceive.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about our audio recordings
To hear your best with common age-related hearing loss, it's important that hearing aids provide adequate high-frequency (high tone) amplification. Restoring access to high-frequency speech cues can improve speech clarity, but it may also make a new fitting sound brighter or less familiar at first. Many users acclimatize to that sound over time, although the experience and the amount of adjustment required vary from person to person.
So while you're listening to these sound samples, remember that what sounds best from a sound quality perspective may not align with what provides the greatest benefit to speech clarity.
We also encourage you to go beyond the sound samples, and click through to view the HearAdvisor ratings for performance in quiet and noisy settings, as well as ratings for own voice quality, feedback issues, and audio streaming quality. HearAdvisor's ratings are critical to understanding the benefit side of the equation.
"Open" versus "closed" describes the ear coupling—how the earpiece seats in your ear canal—not the style of the device. An open fitting (for example, an open dome) leaves the canal partly open; a closed fitting (a custom mold, closed dome, or sealed ear tip) blocks it. Open fittings can reduce the occlusion effect (hearing your own voice as if speaking into a barrel) and preserve natural sound for people with good low-frequency hearing, while closed fittings can deliver more amplification and better isolation from noise. Neither is universally better: the right coupling depends on your hearing loss, your ear, and your comfort.
HearAdvisor tests each device with the coupling documented in its results—prescription devices are tested with a range of couplings (vented sleeves, tulip domes, and closed domes, depending on the device)—so each published score applies to the specific coupling used, and results may differ with a different dome, sleeve, vent, or earmold.
Sometimes. Tested in the standardized N3 configuration, some OTC devices perform at or close to the level of prescription devices in the lab. Two caveats matter:
- Hearing loss range: OTC hearing aids are intended for perceived mild-to-moderate hearing loss only. For more severe hearing loss, or a substantially different audiogram, an OTC device may not provide adequate amplification or benefit—prescription devices can provide much more gain and are fit to your measured hearing by a professional.
- Tuned Fit: HearAdvisor's Tuned Fit is achieved with professional lab tools. Most people are unlikely to reach settings closely matched to the laboratory target on their own with an OTC device. With prescription devices, an audiologist using real-ear measurements can often bring the fitting substantially closer to prescriptive targets, within the limits of the device and the wearer's hearing loss.
The HearingTracker hands-on review process
The SoundScore is one of nine quality inputs used in the overall HearingTracker Score. Under our current review process, reviewers wear each pair of hearing aids for at least a week before completing the hands-on ratings. Our review team rates eight ownership categories: Build Quality, Battery, Bluetooth, App Features, Pro Support, Comfort, Handling, and Design.
Value is calculated separately, from those quality inputs and the product's recorded market price; it is not directly assigned by a reviewer. The nine quality inputs and Value combine into a single HearingTracker Score between 0 and 5, using the formula described below.
:format(webp))
The live product card below shows where the overall HearingTracker Score and individual category ratings appear in our reviews. Because ratings and market prices can change, the numbers shown here may update over time. SoundScore is the most heavily weighted rating in the calculation of the overall score.
From $4,598per pair
Phonak’s Infinio Sphere delivers genuinely standout speech clarity in loud, noisy places thanks to its DEEPSONIC “Sphere mode,” but you’ll trade some discretion and may wrestle with fit or Bluetooth pairing to get that top-tier performance.
Key Features
Expert Review
How we score the HearingTracker categories (beyond SoundScore)
Sound performance (our SoundScore) is the most heavily weighted part of the overall HearingTracker Score, but it isn’t the whole story. Hearing aids are worn every day in messy real life—sweat, rain, earwax, accidental drops, finicky wireless connections, and tiny controls that need to work for people with low vision or limited dexterity. The categories below capture those “ownership” factors using a mix of published specifications and hands-on evaluation.
Unless noted otherwise, categories are scored on a 1–5 scale where 5 = excellent and 1 = poor. Several rubrics below award points that can sum to zero; a completed rating is nonetheless never published below 1.0. A confirmed absence of every scored capability in a category receives 1.0 — the minimum completed rating — not zero.
The numeric ratings come from the rubrics below. The descriptor labels shown next to them on our comparison pages—“Above Average,” “Average,” “Below Average”—are comparative, not fixed translations of the number. A score is compared against the current average for that category: scores within ±0.25 points of the category average are labelled “Average,” more than 0.25 above reads “Above Average,” and more than 0.25 below reads “Below Average.” “Excellent” is reserved for scores of 4.5 and up, whatever the average.
The comparison population is every product with a published overall HearingTracker Score—prescription and OTC together, including models no longer sold. Products with incomplete ratings are excluded, because they have no published composite score. Because the labels are relative to the catalog, they shift as new products are rated and the category average moves—so a 4.1 can read “Average” in a strong category without anything being wrong.
Build Quality
This score evaluates construction quality and published environmental protection. It does not predict long-term reliability or product failure rates.
We look at the manufacturer’s published ingress protection ratings (solids and liquids) and convert the combined IP value into a 1–5 score by placing it into equal brackets (based on a maximum possible combined score of 14 from IP6X + IPX8). The combined IP calculation is a HearingTracker scoring convention, not an official composite IP rating.
We then rate key physical components from hands-on testing—main device housing, buttons/switches, battery door/compartment, speaker/receiver and earpiece, and the case/charger—each on a 1–5 scale. The final Build Quality score is the average across the components that apply to the device: a component a device does not have (a battery door on a sealed rechargeable model, for example) is left out of the average rather than scored zero, so a device is never penalized for lacking a part it was not designed to have.
Battery
This score is about “all-day practicality”—how long the aids last, how manageable charging is, and whether they’re convenient away from home. We combine three components using a weighted average: reported battery life (65% weight), reported charge time (20%), and portable charging capability (15%).
Battery life uses manufacturer-reported hours, mapped to a 1–5 scale:
- Less than 6 hours: 1
- 6 to under 12 hours: 2
- 12 to under 18 hours: 3
- 18 to 24 hours: 4
- More than 24 hours: 5
Charge time is mapped the same way:
- 4 hours or more: 1
- 3 to under 4 hours: 2
- 2 to under 3 hours: 3
- 1 to under 2 hours: 4
- Less than 1 hour: 5
Portable charging capability is all-or-nothing: if the charging case provides additional on-the-go charges without mains power, the device earns the top score for that component; if not, it earns zero. Because that component carries 15% of the Battery score, its absence measurably lowers the score—it is not an optional bonus.
Devices that run on disposable batteries are scored on expected battery life alone. Charge time and portable charging capability do not apply to them and are left out of the weighted average rather than scored zero.
Bluetooth
This score reflects core wireless audio/calling capability (separate from app controls). We award points for three common capabilities and sum them to a maximum of 5: hands-free calling earns 1 point if supported; iOS direct-streaming capability earns 2 points if supported; and Android direct-streaming capability earns 2 points if supported. We credit any protocol that delivers audio directly to that platform — Bluetooth Classic (A2DP), Made for iPhone (MFi), Android's ASHA, or Bluetooth LE Audio with the Hearing Access Profile — rather than one named protocol, because a device that streams over Bluetooth Classic reaches both platforms without MFi or ASHA. A device with no direct-streaming or calling capability at all receives the minimum completed rating of 1.0.
Note that this score reflects Bluetooth capability—what the hearing aids can connect to and what they can do. Day-to-day connection stability (dropouts, pairing quirks, handoffs between devices) is not part of this number; we cover it in the written review.
App Features
This score captures both what the app can do and how usable it feels. We start with a simple feature checklist where each item earns 1 point if present: gain control, personalization/self-fit or in-situ testing, multi-band frequency adjustment (two or more meaningful bands, or a functional tonal tilt), noise control (directionality and/or noise reduction adjustment), and at least one additional lifestyle feature (for example tinnitus tools or health/fitness-related features). That feature score (0–5) is then averaged with a subjective Ease of Use rating (1–5) based on hands-on testing of the app’s clarity, stability, and day-to-day practicality. A product confirmed to have no companion app receives the minimum completed rating of 1.0.
Pro Support
This score reflects how much clinical guidance is available after purchase—important because hearing aids are medical devices. We assign points and sum to a maximum of 5: in-person hearing care provider support earns 2 points if available; remote hearing care provider support earns 1 point; remote technician support earns 1 point; and remote programming and/or firmware updates earns 1 point. A product with no post-purchase professional support available receives the minimum completed rating of 1.0.
Comfort
This is a subjective rating of wear comfort over time. We score comfort from hands-on wear experience, since comfort issues often emerge after extended daily use.
Community and owner feedback may inform the written assessment. It affects the numeric rating only when a consistent pattern is supported by multiple independent reports and agrees with the reviewer’s hands-on findings.
Handling
This is a subjective rating of how easy the devices are to manage—putting them on and taking them off, cleaning, inserting domes/molds, using buttons, and charging/battery changes. We pay special attention to real-world usability for people with limited dexterity or vision. Community and owner feedback informs Handling on the same basis as Comfort: it shapes the written assessment, and moves the numeric rating only when a consistent pattern across multiple independent reports agrees with the reviewer’s hands-on findings.
Design
This score reflects the physical design and aesthetic. Because preference varies (some people want maximum discreteness; others prefer bold style), we consider physical size, visual coherence, finish quality, color options, how discreet the device is where that matters, charger or case design, and how well the physical design supports the product’s intended use. Smaller can be a plus, but miniaturization alone doesn’t determine the score.
Value
This score is our estimate of “what you get for the price,” relative to the overall market. We start with the same weighted quality average used in the overall HearingTracker Score (with sound performance weighted most heavily), then apply a price-based adjustment that rewards products priced below the typical market level and penalizes products priced above it. Because hearing aid pricing is not evenly distributed, we treat price comparisons on a logarithmic scale so unusually high or low prices don’t distort the results. The final Value rating is bounded between 0 and 5. We publish it only when all nine quality inputs and a positive recorded price are available, and it is recalculated automatically when prices change (since the market baseline shifts) or when any underlying quality score changes.
Because the overall HearingTracker Score also carries a price adjustment (see how the overall score is calculated below), a change in price will move both a product’s Value rating and—more gently—its overall HearingTracker Score.
How the overall HearingTracker Score is calculated
Once all nine quality inputs are available, we can calculate the broader HearingTracker Score. Those inputs are the SoundScore plus eight ownership ratings: Build Quality, Battery, Bluetooth, App Features, Pro Support, Comfort, Handling, and Design.
We do not treat an unrated category as a score of zero. If any required quality input is missing, the overall HearingTracker Score and the Value rating remain unpublished until the evaluation is complete.
A missing rating means the category has not yet been evaluated; it does not mean the product performed poorly. When a product has been evaluated and is confirmed to lack a capability, we assign the minimum completed rating defined by that category's rubric.
We start with a weighted quality average across those nine inputs. They are not weighted equally—our weighting places substantially more emphasis on sound performance than on aesthetics (percentages rounded):
- SoundScore: 31%
- Battery: 13%
- Build Quality: 9%
- Bluetooth: 9%
- Comfort: 9%
- Handling: 9%
- Pro Support: 9%
- App Features: 5%
- Design: 5%
Unlike the SoundScore component weights, these broader category weights are HearingTracker editorial weights rather than the result of the HearAdvisor consumer and hearing-care-professional survey. They are designed to place the greatest emphasis on laboratory sound performance, followed by battery practicality and the other day-to-day ownership factors.
The Value rating begins with that same weighted quality average and applies a market-relative price adjustment: the product's price is compared on a logarithmic scale against the price baseline, which includes every product in HearAdvisor's product database with a positive recorded price (technically, a z-score of the natural log of price). Products priced below the typical market level get a lift; products priced above it take a hit.
What "price" means here. Prices are recorded per pair rather than per device. Each product has one recorded pair price in HearAdvisor's product database, and that figure feeds both its Value rating and the shared price baseline. A product with no positive recorded price is excluded from the baseline.
Prices are not perfectly equivalent across products or sales channels. A prescription price may include professional fitting and follow-up care, while an OTC price may primarily cover the devices and remote or self-service support. Chargers, accessories, subscriptions, promotions, and included services can also differ. The Value rating should therefore be read as a market-relative estimate, not a perfectly like-for-like comparison of every package.
The final HearingTracker Score then combines the weighted quality total with Value. As a practical result, price affects the headline score much less strongly than it affects the separate Value rating: a product priced one standard deviation below the (logarithmic) market average gains roughly a quarter of a point on its overall score, and one priced a standard deviation above loses roughly a quarter of a point.
A product with complete quality ratings but no positive recorded price receives no Value rating. Its HearingTracker Score is still published without a price bonus or penalty, making it equal to its weighted quality average.
Scores can change when a product's ratings or price change, when new products alter the price baseline, or when we correct or formally revise a calculation method. When a calculation change affects published results, we recalculate all affected products and document the change in the version history below.
The final HearingTracker Score is bounded between 0 and 5.
Technical details
SoundScore is price-blind and reflects laboratory sound performance. The HearingTracker Score is a broader, value-aware score that combines product quality, ownership factors, support, and a smaller price adjustment. If you want pure lab performance, compare SoundScores; if you want performance for the money, the HearingTracker Score and the Value rating build the price in.
For readers who want the exact implementation, we first calculate the weighted quality average:
Q = weighted quality total / 3.2
When all nine quality inputs are available and the product has a positive recorded price:
z = z-score of ln(price)
Value = max(0, min(5, Q − z))
HT Score = max(0, min(5, (3.2 × Q + Value) / 4.2))
When all nine quality inputs are available but no positive price is recorded, we do not publish a Value rating. The HearingTracker Score receives no price bonus or penalty and is therefore equal to the weighted quality average, Q.
If any of the nine quality inputs is missing, neither Value nor the HearingTracker Score is published.
For products with a valid price, and where neither the lower nor the upper boundary applies, the formula simplifies to:
HT Score = Q − z / 4.2
This is why a product priced one standard deviation below the logarithmic market average gains approximately 0.24 points on its overall score, while one standard deviation above loses approximately 0.24 points.
The price baseline includes every product in HearAdvisor’s product database with a positive recorded price. Scores are held in one-decimal columns, so they are rounded to one decimal place when written and displayed to one decimal place on HearingTracker. Because a price change anywhere in the catalog shifts the z-score baseline, a single price cut can nudge every product’s Value and overall score.
Independence and funding
Our relationship with HearAdvisor. HearingTracker and HearAdvisor are separate companies that work closely together and share a founder and personnel. Abram Bailey founded HearingTracker and is a co-founder of HearAdvisor; Steve Taddei is a co-founder of HearAdvisor and its Lab Director, and also contributes reviews to HearingTracker. HearAdvisor controls its laboratory procedures and SoundScore calculations. HearingTracker controls its editorial reviews and the broader HearingTracker ratings.
How the companies make money. HearingTracker may earn affiliate revenue when users click links or purchase products through our site. HearAdvisor earns revenue from public lab-testing fees for some lower-priority products, licensing of HearAdvisor Expert Choice badges, optional sponsored video packages, and affiliate links with retailers—added only after testing is complete.
What manufacturers can and cannot do:
- A manufacturer cannot buy a better score or a better ranking.
- Paying for public testing does not grant control over the test method, the score, the conclusions, or whether results are published.
- HearAdvisor does not establish affiliate or sponsored arrangements for a tested product until laboratory testing is complete. HearingTracker may have pre-existing commercial relationships with manufacturers or retailers, but those relationships do not grant control over ratings, conclusions, rankings, or publication decisions.
- Brands may be invited to correct factual specifications; they cannot approve or veto conclusions.
- Negative results cannot be suppressed by the manufacturer.
- HearingTracker retains final control of editorial ratings; HearAdvisor retains final control of laboratory metrics.
Public testing fees may affect whether or when HearAdvisor evaluates a lower-priority product. Commercial relationships do not determine the laboratory procedures, scores, rankings, editorial conclusions, or whether results are published. Our primary goal is to empower consumers with accurate and transparent information to help them make informed decisions about their hearing care. To learn more about the team, visit our about page; we welcome feedback and questions on our contact page.
What these scores cannot tell you
Our scores are designed to make products comparable under identical, repeatable conditions. They are not a substitute for individual care:
- Laboratory results target one standardized hearing loss (the N3 sloping moderate configuration); they do not represent every audiogram.
- Ear anatomy, coupling choice, receiver strength, fitting settings, and acclimatization all affect real-world outcomes.
- A SoundScore is a model-based estimate for a standardized configuration—not a prediction of your individual clinical outcome.
- Audio recordings cannot reproduce exactly what a person with hearing loss will perceive.
- One week of wear cannot establish long-term reliability or product failure rates.
- Comfort and handling ratings remain partly subjective.
- Phone and operating-system compatibility varies by device generation and OS version; check the specifications against your phone.
- The quality of a professional fitting can materially change results with prescription devices.
- No score replaces a hearing evaluation by a professional or a real-world trial of the device in your own life.
References and version history
Current HearAdvisor methodology and version history (living, version-controlled documents):
- Methods overview
- Hearing-device methodology
- Laboratory setup
- Device settings and fitting procedure
- Metrics and the SoundScore calculation
- Changelog
Historical publication: Sabin, A., Taddei, S., & Bailey, A. (2023). HearAdvisor procedures for recording and evaluating hearing devices v 1.0. HearAdvisor LLC. Released online May 2023. — the original published procedure; the living methodology above supersedes it.
HearingTracker score methodology. The combined-score formula described above has been in effect since November 2025, with a June 2026 correction that reads the lab-calculated SoundScore directly (previously a manually copied value could drift or be missing). Page history:
- July 30, 2026 — Implementation corrections. Corrected an implementation mismatch so that feedback handling receives 15% weight and own-voice quality receives 12%, matching the published survey-derived methodology. All affected Initial Fit, Tuned Fit, SoundScore, Value, and HearingTracker Score calculations were recomputed. We also changed incomplete-rating handling: missing quality inputs no longer count as zero, Value requires a positive recorded price, products with complete ratings but no recorded price receive a price-neutral HearingTracker Score, and published composite scores are bounded between 0 and 5.
- July 29, 2026 — Methodology-page expansion. Documented the category weights, the overall-score formula, the price adjustment, the comparative labels, the independence policies, and the limitations. The page rewrite itself did not introduce a new scoring philosophy.
- January 25, 2026 — Added the nine ownership-category rubrics (Build Quality through Value).
- June 21, 2023 — Original publication alongside HearAdvisor's v1.0 procedures.
Scores on the site are recalculated automatically as ratings, prices, and the product catalog change. When a methodology change affects published scores, all products are rescored under the current method, and we note it here.
Abram Bailey, AuD
Founder and PresidentDr. Bailey is a leading expert on consumer technology in the audiology industry. He is a staunch advocate for patient-centered hearing care and audiological best practices, and welcomes any technological innovation that improves access to quality hearing outcomes. Dr. Bailey holds an Au.D. from Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Dr Steve Taddei
Doctor of AudiologySteve Taddei, Au.D., merges his audio engineering degree from Columbia College Chicago with his doctorate in audiology from Northern Illinois University to advance hearing technologies and raise hearing loss awareness as the Lab Director at HearAdvisor. He also contributes consumer-focused hearing aid and earplug reviews at HearingTracker.com, and inspires future professionals through his adjunct faculty roles at several colleges, encouraging the next generation to discover and pursue their passions.