You've avoided answering the question, and missed the point.
People can imagine "dramatic" differences. They really, really can.
Like I said, if we really want to get at what is true, it doesn't matter how much conviction someone has in their belief or claim; what matters is the plausibility and the evidence for that claim.
And as I've pointed out: the approach at ASR is acknowledging one can be wrong in what we believe or seem to perceive, and offers ways of learning one is wrong, and helping to settle questions in dispute - through evidence.
Whereas you keep repeating versions where you simply assume your perception is reliable, as you have done again, which is begging exactly the question at hand.
And you don't offer a method for how anyone could show you are in error.
So far, your position still seems to be a form of dogmatism - "Some differences that I hear are OBVIOUS and that's that! Nothing can show I'm wrong!"