different people may hear the same sound differently...

@teo_audio I really enjoyed your post. 

My audiophile hobby has trained my brain to hear more precisely, much as my photography hobby trained me to see and envision images better.

When I first heard my parents' new Magnavox lo fi console, i thought it sounded great.  After I got a mid fi Fisher 3 piece system, I could tell it sounded much better.  Later when I heard decent systems in other students' dorm rooms, I realized how much my mid fi system was lacking.

As I upgraded my rig through the years, I could hear improvements, albeit with diminishing differences.  Finally, I reached a point where I couldn't hear the difference any more -- that's when I stopped upgrading.  I had reached the limit of my ability to learn to hear better.

Regarding audio.. measurement of the meaning and context of said measurement has not been fully established as of yet, and may never be.

This just happened, literally, just the other day. It happens once every few months, it seems, maybe a few times a year, overall... that we learn something new about how the ear works.

New research throws doubt on old ideas of how hearing works

What this seems to be saying is that, in our individualism, we can and probably do have differences in the ’group strike’ of the hairs on the ear, re how we individually sense each note or how that note is placed, how it exists according to nerve impulses from sets of hairs, in our individual ears.

Thus harmonics, overtones, timing, spacial envelopes, etc, each different for each person. Some can’t hear all of the nuance that others do and that is probably tied to their recognition of note fundamentals, in the individual sense. This, due to the given note fundamentals normally happening below 1000hz.

The absolute cross connection of all of those cilia or hairs in the ear, vs the individual hairs at play at higher frequencies (individually shaped comb filtering and thus timing and level mixing) ...would bring about a microsecond, even verging on nanosecond flowing time sensitivity to the ear, depending on the person.

Everything known about human hearing via observation and individual reports from the world of high end audio.... says that this is not just possible, but likely to be the case and the evidence of human jitter sensitivity and so on, re distortions that add up to that effect, say this abundantly.

Subtle jitter differences at the pico to nano level and it’s spectrum (in jitter’s spectral patterning as a total, for the given gear, vs another jitter pattern) in digital audio is known to be ’hearable’ by humans, in the realm of high end audio and it’s correlation in measurement. This much, magazines and efforts like that of stereophile, have given or gifted us with --as data points to analyze may go.

The human ear-brain hearing mechanisms probably (one of - other creatures may be inherently more talented!) the most sophisticated and capable conscious and unconscious self adjusting FFT analysis hardware to exist, at this time. those peaks of capacity lie in individuals, not absolutes available to everyone. As it is a sense thing, not a mechanical electrical hardware thing, it is very difficult to quantify except to rely upon individual testimony. ie, science, where observation is king.

One cannot blithely dismiss the observer due to some individual scientist’s or layman’s inability to scientifically and objectively quantify the observer in the given scenario... as science, as an idea, as a reality, as a method... is built around the idea of the observer.

This sort of new data about hearing.. is not what you want to get into the hands of some semi-smart wank working at a company that is trying to come up with the next mainstream wasted space tunes for general consumption on the web. Ie, that pile of refuse artists that have no value except to charm the given youth aspects out of their attention and money. (I am old, this is my cloud, hear my yells)

That such persons might be able to find a way to leverage this thinking into the production and mixing to create the next flash billionaire out of that pile of ’wasted space flash in the pan signer of the moment’ schlock that exists at the bottom feeder area of the music market.

I consider all of the above (in the general sense) to be a given and known and have considered it a known for decades, now.

If places like ASR or others of similar thinking want to live in the past, in their safe zone of circular ignorance as related to their obvious religious adherence to blinkered scientism - is not my concern. My concern is when they project it upon others as an obvious diktat.

@teo_audio 

There is abundant research available indicating that there is indeed variation in both individual physiology and in individual psychology that results in differences in not only in interpretation of sound but also in differences in preference perceptions.

All one needs to do is look at the vast differences in successful audio products for proof that people have varying preferences/tastes.

Audio equipment is designed by most engineers to do one thing: reproduce an input signal as accurately as possible (at a cost point). Measurements are used by all designers in analyzing the success of their efforts. It is an indispensable tool. Some audio engineers make efforts to tailor the sound of their equipment to appeal to certain people who like/prefer certain kinds of distortion, or use certain kinds of distortion to cover other kinds of distortion in band aid like fashion, while others seek to drive distortion of all types below audibility. People that like certain kinds of distortion call amps without "clinical", "cold", etc. People who don't want distortion call amps with "warm", "inaccurate", "syrupy", etc.

Some want the signal delivered as purely as possible, others want an instrument. Some want to add tubes to their class d to get this added distortion, some like to use cables as "tone" controls. What is clear is that people don't agree.

What people should agree on is that ultimately, due to these differences in physiology and psychology, we all have different tastes and preferences and thus, there is no right or wrong way to enjoy recorded music. There is no "best" anything- there is only what is best for us each individually. "Class d sucks", "tubes suck", "digital sucks", "vinyl sucks", and on and on, is nothing but meaningless babble. We must listen and decide for ourselves- the personal opinions of others are can't be relied on, trusted, or assumed to be "truth" for people other than themselves. I laugh at how people get so worked up over this statement. When it comes to subjective matters of taste, we should all heed the adage "to thine own self be true".

One will save a great deal of time and money by ignoring those trying to tell you that this or that amp sounds "best" or that this or that amp is "junk", that they can improve your amp with their mods and take it to an "11". That only "true" audiophiles have tubes and vinyl. That cheaper components can't possible sound "better" than less expensive ones, and on and on. Listening for one's self is the only way to find the truth. The rest is all hot air.

when a person speaks, let's say in front of ten people, to most, the voice coming to them would be a non issue, but invariably to a least one person that voice would sound either outright annoying or subtlety not to their liking, or they all just won't have an issue with that voice. 

It's like when you meet someone, and immediately without any prior feedback of the person you completely dislike the person when everyone else is neutral to that person.

Biological fact is that all senses are somewhat different to various degrees from one individual to another. hearing is not different, specially since not two humans have exactly the same ears, ear canal, cochlea, tympanic membrane thickness, and brain receptors in order for us all hear a sound exactly as it is.  So, we all hear the same sound, but not exactly perceived by the brain the same.