> What it cannot do is faithfully reproduce natural sound in a way that is subjectively satisfying and moving and true. Gahhh. This just makes me want to cry.

> What it cannot do is faithfully reproduce natural sound in a way that is subjectively satisfying and moving and true. Gahhh. This just makes me want to cry. Look, sonney-me-lad, you might want an analogue amp in your ear, that has a terrible frequency response, is prone to feedback and will most likely destroy what frequency range you have left, but lets not blame this as a technical problem. (don't start me on battery life) You like the "warm" sound of "analogue". Hand in hand with this claim, is that somehow one can have the ability to tell digital recorded sound from analogue. As an ex recording engineer, I can tell you, you're full of crap. I could[+] make a very convincing "analogue" sound using a mackie D8b digital desk and 24 track digital recorder. I can tell you now, that if I played a cd, housed it in a box that looked like it had tube on it, then attached a record player, Piped it into a decent amp with some NS-10s. It would sound great. To convince you of course I'd need to clip off the top frequencies, (8k+) add some clicks and hiss (raise the noisefloor) you'd then be espousing the wonders of its "warm analogue sound". Why have digital hearing aids concurred the world? because they are better. One can steer the microphones, they use less power, the frequency response is trivially tuned to your hearing range, there are limiters in there to stop damage, The speaker can be calibrated, as can the microphone. you can add a directional handheld mic so you can point it at people so you can hear them talking. You can add background noise reduction trivially. All of this can't be done with frankly shitty analogue hearing aids. Don't fuck up other people's lives with your nonsense.