"Differences in sound, even small perceived differences, can have a "relative" large impact on an individual, so minor improvements can become significant."

I guess I'm different from most, because minor differences in sound quality mean so little to me. It's the MUSIC that is the most important thing, and while there is certainly a difference between a brand-new re-recording and 45-year-old original tracks, when you start comparing different versions of those 45-year-old tracks down to such a minuscule level, well, it seems to me like diminishing returns have set in. Differences on that level seem to imply that the parts are being focused on way more than the whole, and isn't it the overall score that is really what's important?

Again, most of the differences mentioned are not only subtle, many are also subjective. His opinion that this version of track 27 is slightly better than another version of track 27 loses some of its validity when you consider that I, and probably many others, don't even agree with his assessments. I compared some of his findings and adamantly disagreed with which version he liked best. And since there's nothing special about me, I would venture to guess that if others did the A/Bing themselves, their conclusions would differ markedly from his. Given that, what is the sense of analyzing and nitpicking down to such a level when it's only one's opinion about what it is that's being analyzed. There's little that's objective about it.