Purpose:Perceived sound quality was variously compared between either no aiding or aiding with three models of hearing aid that varied the microphone position around the pinna, depth of the receiver in the auditory meatus, degree of meatal occlusion, and processing sophistication. The hearing aids were modern designs and commercially available at the time of testing.Method:Binaural recordings of multichannel spatially separated speech and music excerpts were made in a manikin, either open ear or aided. Recordings were presented offline over wide-bandwidth, high-quality insert earphones. Participants listened to pairs of the recordings and made preference ratings both by clarity and externality (a proxy for “spaciousness”). Two separate groups of adults were tested, 20 with audiometrically normal hearing (NH) and 20 with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss (hearing impaired [HI]).Results:For ratings of speech clarity, the NH group expressed no preference between the open ear and a deeply inserted occluding aid, both of which were preferred to a low-pass filtered output of the same aid. For the music signal, a small preference emerged for the open-ear recording over that of the aid. For the HI group, clarity of the deeply inserted aid was similar to in-the-ear and behind-the-ear devices for speech, but worse for music. Ratings of spaciousness produced no clear result in either group, which can be attributed to study limitations and/or participant factors.Conclusion:Based on clarity, a wide bandwidth, particularly to beyond 5 kHz generally and below 300 Hz for music, is desirable, independent of hearing aid design.