Sierra - the argument is not that digital is necessarily inferior, but that it is inferior for certain individuals with certain loss profiles. The measurable benefit for someone like me would be this: I have profound, congenital, and very linear hearing loss, with no dead zones. Even the most linearly programmed digital aids feature too much compression for me. Almost no digital aids have enough headroom, which results in clipping, particularly when I listen to music. Moreover, I can hear the difference in sound quality in terms of tone, timbre, resonance, decay, etc. There is an emotional connection to the world around me that is severed with digital. And rest assured this is not the result of any prior bias regarding digital aids.
The best analog aids, of the kind that were readily available in the 90s and first decade of the 21st century didn’t have this problem for me and for many other users. I’m not sure how I can respond if you say the science claims there’s no detectable loss in digital sampling when my phenomenal experience says otherwise. And given the relatively low bit rates and sampling rates (based around the levels of human speech, rather than the much wider dynamic range of the larger world around us), why should my experience be surprising?
I am not at all insisting that no digital aid could ever prove satisfying to folks like me – I know that I would welcome it, so feel free to take that challenge.
Neville - I’ve dug into the publications, and while I remain impressed at the ingenuity of the designers, I’m less impressed by the results of the trials, which strike me as too ambiguous to have justified the total elimination of analog devices. This move (as opposed to just introducing digital alongside analogs) may have been a matter of increased benefit, but the benefits did not necessarily accrue to the patients.
And while your claim about latency detection may be true for progressive loss, what about static loss? My loss has not changed since I was very young, and I frequently notice the latency problem with digital. I agree about the importance of neuroscience here, but everything I’ve read points to the fact that the brain can consistently respond to distinctions in timing and frequency even when the ears cannot.