What I have long wondered is why are some making such a big deal of if the sound from a CI is the same as a "hearing person"? Isn't the main point of a CI the communication it can make possible whether it sounds the same or not?
Why do they need to sound the same?
- Thread starter Jane B.
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 43,645
- Reaction score
- 506
Pretty much nobody does care.
You know the old phrase "a bee in her bonnet?"
Sometimes a person just gets obsessed with something, and it is best just to ignore it.
green427
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,882
- Reaction score
- 5
Think of it this way....if you no longer have a man around, and you wanted to have sex, which would you rather have sex with...an expensive, programmable robot, or a real man?
LoveBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 8,793
- Reaction score
- 1,170
Think of it this way....if you no longer have a man around, and you wanted to have sex, which would you rather have sex with...an expensive, programmable robot, or a real man?
Let me think about that...and no, I do not have a vib.... 
Just like everyone does not need hearing, everyone does not need sex. Nice to have for some, but not needed.
Bott you have a very good point! It seemed that I was seeing it as a "but" reply so often (stated slightly differently different times) in CI threads. So . . .I thought I would ask why in a place that seemed most likely to get me answers.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,418
- Reaction score
- 8
For those who are profoundly deaf, they aren't making a choice between natural sound and CI sound: it's a choice between no sound or CI sound. No one chooses hearing via CI over typical hearing. So I agree -- I can never understand why people argue that CIs fail by saying they provide a poor experience that isn't worth doing because hearing via a CI is not the same as natural sound. Of course it's not the same as natural sound. Some people hate what they hear via CIs. But many people like it.
I can look at amazing shots of the Earth from the International Space Station and yes, of course it would be a very different experience if I were to see this all in person, but I don't have that access or opportunity. And that doesn't make seeing it digitally a poor experience in itself. I would not have seen these awesome images at all otherwise.
It also seems so mean-spirited to make cutting comments about the quality of hearing sound via a CI vs. hearing sound via ears to or about someone who hasn't got that option of hearing via ears. My daughter can likely hear far more sounds than I can naturally. She can hear all the speech sounds and a significant amount of musical sounds. You could argue that these sounds have a poorer quality than those that I hear. Yes. And there's a lot of music that she just can't hear or that doesn't sound pleasant to her because what she does hear is not what was intended to be heard.
You could look at this as failure -- if the goal is to fully replicate the hearing experience. Or you could look at this as success, if the goal is to provide access to useful sounds, specifically those required to easily comprehend spoken language. I think the goal of CI developers, and those who use CIs, is currently the latter.
I can look at amazing shots of the Earth from the International Space Station and yes, of course it would be a very different experience if I were to see this all in person, but I don't have that access or opportunity. And that doesn't make seeing it digitally a poor experience in itself. I would not have seen these awesome images at all otherwise.
It also seems so mean-spirited to make cutting comments about the quality of hearing sound via a CI vs. hearing sound via ears to or about someone who hasn't got that option of hearing via ears. My daughter can likely hear far more sounds than I can naturally. She can hear all the speech sounds and a significant amount of musical sounds. You could argue that these sounds have a poorer quality than those that I hear. Yes. And there's a lot of music that she just can't hear or that doesn't sound pleasant to her because what she does hear is not what was intended to be heard.
You could look at this as failure -- if the goal is to fully replicate the hearing experience. Or you could look at this as success, if the goal is to provide access to useful sounds, specifically those required to easily comprehend spoken language. I think the goal of CI developers, and those who use CIs, is currently the latter.
green427
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,882
- Reaction score
- 5
Just like everyone does not need hearing, everyone does not need sex. Nice to have for some, but not needed.
True, but the point is that some folks want their "new" hearing to be as realistic as possible, even though the goal is to hear something and to be able to communicate.
20 years ago most of the late-deafened CI implantees I've talked to were all complaining that the sound quality was poor. Today most are saying it is not perfect, but very close with the latest equipment.
So, yes, that means pretty soon robots will be almost as realistic as Harrison Ford.....
LoveBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 8,793
- Reaction score
- 1,170
