How Science Got Sound Wrong


I don't believe I've posted this before or if it has been posted before but I found it quite interesting despite its technical aspect. I didn't post this for a digital vs analog discussion. We've beat that horse to death several times. I play 90% vinyl. But I still can enjoy my CD's.  

https://www.fairobserver.com/more/science/neil-young-vinyl-lp-records-digital-audio-science-news-wil...
128x128artemus_5
Thanks for all the input. It had been about a month ago when I first read the article. FWIW, I am not  an electronics  tech or engineer. I am a music lover who loves to hear it as good as what I can afford. Many of you have given technical reasons for your disagreement. Great. I'm glad you are here (well.. so far) Even though  you  go way beyond my understanding I still learn something. I just know what I hear. And I'm pretty technical in how I come to my conclusions of what sounds best to me. And there is the rub...  what's best to me. The biggest question I have is this. How can an objective quantitative answer be given to such a subjective subject as music, its reproduction and one's interpretation of what they hear? Oh sure, we can give some ideas or thoughts about it. But our knowledge only goes so deep. One may look at figures and speculate what should be heard. But can we absolutely know what IS heard by 100 different people listening to the same music on the same equipment? I don't think so. My $.02 worth.
BTW @atdavid. Have you REALLY posted 367 times since Oct 30., 19? That may be a record.
It's a full time job keeping up with the misinformation being spread :-)
Post removed 

atdavid
"
It's a full time job keeping up with the misinformation being spread "

With more than 375 posts in less than 30 days of membership hear you are doing an excellent job of contributing to the misinformation even if you are correct about 15% of the time.