Well, I would like to see exactly what parts of that I disagreed with. For some parts of the system, there is "absolute sound", in the electronic sense, in particular. However, even way back then, I will point out perceptual coding was a real thing (dating back to 1983/84) and the need was, and is, to learn what kind of reproductive system was needed to provide those perceptual cues.
PSR, in particular, was being born at that time. This was also written at a time when people were insisting vocally that we could not measure errors in a PCM system, amplifier errors, etc, and were mythologizing endlessly about the parts that absolutely CAN be measured. So some context is necessary here.
I also must point out that cartridge performances, etc, were absolutely things I was mentioning then in terms of euphonic distortions, so I'm a bit curious as to the actual reference, if you don't mind. In particular, it is absolutely false that I was arguing against the euphonic issues when I was in fact pointing out repeatedly, since long before whenever this was, that some people may prefer various distortions, and that was fine until presented as "the right way". So, something is off here.
The Heyser quotes come from from "Hearing vs. Measurement", Audio, March 1978. He may have published an AES paper on the topic.
I was involved in the work on the first perceptual codecs for wireless, this is something different. This concept also differs from euphonic distortion.
Your and other's disagreement then (and seemingly in this forum now) was that no reduction in objective performance was worthwhile, unless it was merely to target an individual preference. This perspective misses one crucial dimension but requires a bit of explanation.
Objective measures look for added impurities and so are useful. But they ignore the circle of confusion.
So we introduce preference ("I like it") such as in the Harman headphone and in-room loudspeaker response targets, for which objective measures may be derived. Statistically broad subjective mean opinion score results, for example, are used to determine these targets. Good so far.
The next evolution that I've been long advocating for (and that Heyser was on the nose about) is to measure
the illusion of reality: "this sounds more real". This differs from preference: one may prefer a more realistic illusion, one may not. This would entail asking different questions than MOS, such as the famous "they are here" or "I am there" questions. I'm sure with some thought, better ones can be determined.
Preference explains some of why subjectivists and objectivists differ and bicker, but ignores the opinion of a large swath of well meaning subjectivists whose metric is instead
the illusion of reality. Same as preference, such targets aren't "objectively" valid. But as human consumers of a delivered experience, such a goal, the heightened illusion of reality, is highly rational and desirable.
I suspect this is why Harman's in room response target curves differ for trained listeners vs. untrained listeners who desire more bass. Training confers the ability to detect with higher resolution and consistency. It doesn't necessarily confer preference. But I suspect those that undergo training have far more experience with live sound compared to untrained listeners, and so prefer less of the listening room bass boom in the presentation that untrained listeners are used to.
I don't think we can arrive at a simple set of design targets for optimizing the illusion of reality, as can sometimes be done for preference. I agree that our typical objective goals are a worthy starting point, as are the preference targets as secondary targets, but I posit they are not enough.
My point here is that we need to leave room for added deviations from our objective targets which may enhance
the illusion of reality, on an individual basis. I pointed a couple out earlier, there are more. Again, this is different than preference. One may prefer an illusion of reality, or may not, as evidenced in Harman's preference curves for untrained listeners.
Of course, the next step is "what do you do with that"? That's where the fun starts: crossfeed algorithms, room mode cancellation algorithms, dispersion targets, DSP "enhancements" of all sorts such as used on the production side, etc. Lots of fertile feeding ground to explore.
I think this industry is stuck in a rut and I think chasing the
illussion of reality can not only make the experience far more worthwhile, but bring a lot of fun back to this space. The illusion of reality is what I think we as engaged consumers of hifi are really after. And there's a big, necessary role for the objective community in all this, an opportunity that they're unfortunately ignoring on the playback side.
I predict that this perspective will continue to be a controversial, heretical viewpoint. It shouldn't be. I think it's rational.