Paul McCartney has hearing aid difficulties too

Hi Chuck. Yes, we want to struggle less indeed! Often of course we are not helped by poor web sound, crummy loudspeakers, poor acoustics etc. But I cannot see why modern hearing aids need be so bandwidth restricted.

Often very little emerges below 250 - because that’s the legacy figure for speech understanding, dating from bakelite telephone days! As evidenced by iPhones, earpieces and mini microphones can easily go past 15kHz, for folk lucky enough to hear that high! A tiny basic 15 dollar earbud can get down to organ-pedal 20. More recent findings are that the lows around 80 to 200 help many people understand speech better. Certainly that goes for me (I am able to experiment in my own small sound studio).

You’ve probably read in these threads some references to marvellous work being done by Dr Alinka Greasley at Leeds Uni to sharpen up awareness of musical needs among manufacturers and audiologists, so there’s room for optimism - speech AND music.

Sorry but my speech comprehension is 20%. I have a profound hearing loss. So I wear hearing aids to hear. Any speech comprehension is a bonus but I learned a long time ago that it’s not a priority. But I agree in most people it is. Once again it proves that when it comes to hearing loss no two people are the same

First, who posted that any rock star was a hearing expert or offered advise? Next, Rush Limbaugh’s doctors don’t know what caused his hearing loss so not sure how you do. 3rd, Huey Lewis wasn’t suicidal because of his hearing loss, it was from intense tinnitus driving him crazy. I can relate. He still has the tinnitus but has now grown accustomed to it like most of us regular people have. 4th, their hearing loss was most likely work related, just like many of us that worked in manufacturing environments for decades (along with racing motocross for me).
Thinking I have more in common with these rockers hearing loss than differences.

To say that hearing aids number 1 priority is speech comprehension kind of sells the aids a little short. If that’s all they do than a large number of people wouldn’t be buying them or they wouldn’t be called hearing aids. Speech comprehension for me tends to be a lost cause. Aids help but don’t fix. But without the aids I’m unable to hear a lot of other things that make life more enjoyable or safer. If speech comprehension was the only priority why is it that every manufacturer handles it differently. The type of loss you have determines more if the aids will help with speech comprehension. I just don’t think speech comprehension is the only concern when people buy aids. And newer aids can be programmed to the wider scale necessary to enjoy the wide range music requires. It’s a quality of life thing. Paul McCartney needs to find out why his aid just falls out of his ear for no reason.

The same with me. Deafness genetic. Their Problems are little in Comparison to our’s who are deaf ever since. On the other Hand, we’re used to it.

Well I don’t know if we’re used to. I think it’s more we’re accepting the fact that this is the way it is and always will be. But I’m not sure that’s a good thing. I know it causes me to miss out on a lot of things

Hass, I always love reading your posts but just like hearing and hearing loss is unique to all, people go to hearing aids for their own reasons as well. He’s not wrong and you’re not wrong. You guys are just in your own place with your own opinions. I happen to agree with the former that speech was the thing that I suffered with bad enough that made me finally get some help. It’s the kind of interpersonal suffering that is especially painful.

I think I disagree strongly with her statement. I have hearing impairment and without glasses, my vision is not good at all. I would far rather be completely deaf than blind!..all day…hands down…no contest…
maybe that’s just me…
Dan

Think it was HER perspective…
Unless you have both afflictions, you can only offer an opinion. She lived it

Yeah Dan, my thoughts are similar to yours, if I had a choice over Deaf or Blind, I think, I would choose to see…. But, having said that, years ago I worked as a communicator/guide for 2 folks whom were both profoundly Deaf, and Blind…. I signed on their hands using,” Deaf/Blind Manual”, I recall asking them both, if they had a choice between being Deaf or Blind, what would they choose, without hesitation both said, they would choose to hear, which was not what I thought they would say…… At a guess, perhaps what we long for the most, comes into play when you have a duel sensory loss? I can only say, these 2 clients were an absolute pleasure to work with, their sense of of humour was a joy to behold, their zest for life was amazing, I always think of these 2 very fondly, any woes I have in life, pale into insignificance…… Cheers Kev

I pretty confident in saying that I remember reading about this event with Paul McCartney more than 10 years ago, or it may have been the exact similar situation back then.

The thing with Helen Keller is she lost both at a very young age so she really doesn’t remember having either. But if I lived in a dark quiet world I could understand her thinking to hear would be more beneficial. Again that’s her perspective and should be taken for what it’s worth. For those of us that have experienced both and could pick and choose I would think most would pick eyesight. And yes I’m ignoring the previous comment. Sounds like a New Yorker

Helen Keller lived in a different world where there were no accommodations made for the blind or the deaf. For example there was no internet where deaf people can get instant access to loads of people they can communicate with via visual means vice verbal (i.e. text like this). As a person who became acquainted with the powerful of her day she also had financial supporters who provided funds for lifelong nurse / companions that helped steer her through the physical world and keep her from walking into traffic and got her onto the right train and all that. So her perspective isn’t necessarily directly applicable to the modern world or modern peoples everyday lives today. I mention her perspective more from a philosophical angle.

I’ll say this, she lived in a fog where she was totally isolated from the world until a nurse reached through by scratching words on her hands and teaching her a way to communicate. This introduced her to language as a way to break out of the fog of total isolation for good. She still couldn’t see or hear but she could interact with people finally. And that changed her life completely. So it makes sense to me that because she never had either, given a choice she would take the one that would make it easier to communicate (which in her day 100 years ago was audio). That’s not my experience in life but it makes me think about the problem a little differently (hence my saying it was thought provoking).

Chuck Norris came for a hearing examination,

• the audiogram showed that he could hear at a volume of ( -300dB ) minus300dB