To the question: - Smaller. - Improved battery life. - Better tailored to specific hearing loss (e.g. certain frequencies). - Telecoil compatible. - Improv

To the question: - Smaller. - Improved battery life. - Better tailored to specific hearing loss (e.g. certain frequencies). - Telecoil compatible. - Improved Feedback Control. Better safety features. The entire article could be boiled down to an argument that "analogue is natural, digital is artificial." It compares digital hearing aids to MP3s. The problem is, there's nothing inherently natural about the way analogue audio works, and it can manipulate and alter the sound profile just like digital (inc. compression/artifacting, particularly when space constrained/dealing with cross-interference). Just because a technology is older doesn't automatically make it more "pure." If they argued for a way to configure a hearing aids/remove artificial filtering, that's fine (I agree), but to suggest that digital and analogue audio fundamentally work differently from a perceptual perspective isn't really factual.