TBH, it would take a long time (which I don’t have - you will have to do your own research). In short:
-
Our ears haven’t changed, but our understanding of the human auditory system has changed in the last five to ten years due to the insights from neuroscience – the author of that blog (and many others) does not consider what the brain does with ears (plural); the brain works magic with two ears
. -
The unfortunately very influential Mayer-Moran paper – which claimed to prove that humans could not distinguish the benefits of greater than 1x sampling rates – has been thoroughly de-bunked (Jackson, Capp, Stuart, The audibility of typical digital audio filters in a high-fidelity playback system, AES Convention Paper 9174, which won that convention’s award for best peer-reviewed paper).
-
As discussed in that paper, ABX listening tests are also flawed. On this latter point, I will simply quote from it. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons is statistical (i.e. difficult to understand for the layperson), but no less real:
ABX tests have a high sensitivity, that is, the proportion of true-positive results out of total positive results is high. However, ABX tests also have low specificity, meaning that the proportion of true-negative results out of total negative results can be spuriously low. Translating this into outcomes in psychophysical tests, the proportion of the time that a listener scores well on an ABX test by chance is low, but the proportion of the time that a listener can score poorly on a test in spite of being able to discriminate the sounds is high.
[Further] An ABX test requires that a listener retains all three sounds in working memory, and that they perform a minimum of two pair-wise comparisons (A with X and B with X), after which the correct response must be given; this results in the cognitive load for an ABX test being high.