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...
artemus_5
As I said before the whole Peter Belt phenomenon is more relevant, more interesting and more important that what is contained in the article. In other words, the “standard model“ of how humans hear, how the neurons carry the signal from the ears to the brain that is the complete explanation of how we hear is utter BS.
Post removed 
in the same general way tuning-forks help experts tune pianos or harps
That's a HOWLER.

The CONN StroboConn came out in 1936.
The CONN ST-6 came out in 1959.
Peterson Model 400 came out in 1967.
Today, tuners clip on a guitar head and run on a watch battery.

In 50 years, I haven't seen a piano professionally tuned with a fork.

Wikipedia article to annoy Mr K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tuner
Ms K. seems to quote Wikipedia, word for word, several times a day. I think they protest too much.
Geez. No wonder these boards are dead. There are several here who belong over there in Audio Science Review with the rest of the know it alls. Quit the pissing contest. No one has all the answers and that includes science.