HI ALL,
Life is amazingly fickle isn't it ?
However, I have pondered the following issue for many years........ and tonight thought that maybe I should 'put it out there' so to speak.
Bit of background...
FYI...my real job involves Architecture....( NOT the version as so recently 'HI-JACKED/STOLEN'  by our  I.T brothers and sisters ) ....No......The ORIGINAL drawing board,bricks and mortar ,stumbling around building sites type. :)
As an Architect...I have studied environmental acoustics during my career. I have also been heavily involved in the field of Disability Access.....where I learned much about the 'WILD' Range of acoustic receptiveness/response.
There is so much 'out there' now ..info wise..........about what makes a great mix and what to listen for .......etcetera etcetera !!
 
The best way to put this question/statement is:
"DO YOU HEAR WHAT I HEAR" ?
I have never ( AND.......Yes........I am only Human.....and may have missed something :) ), heard of any Pro mixing techniques described in terms of individual audio receptiveness or (I.A.R) .
For Instance (ie: Forget DAWS , Music production for a moment):
Has anyone ever sprung up from  a chair one night in your house and said "Did You Hear That" ? ......and you didn't hear a #@#% thing !!!
Have you ever heard perhaps... wedding guest's derogatory comments about the horrible bassiness of a band/duo who in themselves are happily and obliviously playing away unaware that 90 percent of the room wanted to KILL THEM!!!
We all have different audio receptiveness......including...................DARE I SAY IT..............our Audio Engineers.
 
So ,in general terms:
Is it fair to say that a GREAT (ie: Successful) Audio Engineer is best defined as a person who has an I.A.R  ( which fortunately for them), just happens to identify, accommodate and thus satisfy the I.A.Rs of the BULK of the MASSES ?
Cheers......Frank

Good observation. It's absolutely true that sensory perception varies from one human to the next. Someone with badly diminished hearing would probably not succeed as a mixer. Even someone with extraordinarily acute hearing might have problems, too.
 
However, the variance isn't as big a problem as you might think, relatively speaking. Audiologists measure frequency response for the purpose of customizing EQ for hearing aids. If you look at one of those charts, you'll see variances of perhaps 3 to 6 dB (except in the extreme high end, where it'll be much greater). Compare those inconsistencies with the effects of room resonance in your mixing room, which can exceed 30 dB. Just sitting in a high-back chair or wearing a hat can cause 3-6 dB variances. And yet, those variables don't stop us from creating universally-pleasing mixes.
 
Far more significant are the fuzzy variables of taste. In my city, we have a well-known structure that 90% of the population consider hideous. It was designed by a highly-respected architect, and that same building is in fact widely admired - by other architects. Looking at the interior structure, I can appreciate the engineering that went into its non-traditional angles and I can see why builders respect its elegance. But it's still pretty damn ugly.
 
Do I worry that my perception isn't the same as anyone else's? Nope. It's close enough to the mean to not be a practical hindrance.

And people's perception also varies over time so we might hear things tomorrow that we didn't hear today just because we are focused on something different when listening.

My perspiration is of no value to any juan.
 
Bit, I'm in that extreme class. Unless i am listening with earbuds, I rarely hear tambos, hats or the ping of ride. Suffice it to say that anything over 6K is nearly nonexistent to my "native ears". So how do I get generally accepted mixes (as witnessed by the responses from the Songs Forum)? I make sure I listen vewwwy cawfuwwwy in buds then I ask my few trusted collaborators to "check" my mix (as should be done anyway). They will immediately jump on the 6K and above if I've missed the mark.

A great question by the OP. Like Mr Bit, I don't believe its much of a problem. If you mix for a living, or lets say, like many of us here, a very dedicated pastime purely for the love of producing the very best sounding music we can, then we can train our 'ears'. The very best way is to use a reference source in our listening / mixing environment. I am absolutely certain without any proof that this is how the art of mixing has evolved over the last 5 decades. Yes, classic quality recordings have been produced, mixed and mastered in stellar environments over that time, but I suspect the quality of the end product AS PERCEIVED by the public at large has been due to the musicality and skill of the mixing producer and mastering engineer by tuning in to their 'work' environment and adjusting their 'ear' intelligently to produce a satisfying end product to do the artist justice.