Imagine hearing your favorite song from the point of view of a dog. Dogs perceive all sounds as being at a far lower pitch than we do. If you could hear what you sound like to a dog you'd find that you sound like a giant with a very deep and low-pitched voice.
There is a remarkable relationship between colors and notes in a musical scale. In music, doubling the frequency corresponding to a given note transposes the note up by an octave. If you double the frequency corresponding to a given musical pitch enough times you will have a frequency that corresponds to a color. That said, it's not that pitch and color are the same phenomenon at different scales but rather that there is an analogy present.
Take for example the note E_5=659.25Hz. Double this frequency over and over until the frequency is the same as a frequency of light corresponding to the color blue. Then take for example the note A_4=440Hz. Double this frequency over and over until the frequency is the same as a frequency of light corresponding to the color red-orange.
If it is indeed the case that musical pitch perception varies among individuals then there are of course some constraints as to how it might vary:
I assume that the ratios between the frequencies corresponding to musical notes is the same for everyone. That is, you and I would agree on the musical interval between between a note and the note that is a tritone above that note. We'd agree it's a tritone, but that only speaks to the ratio, so even though we're both claiming to hear the same song in A♭ it might be the case that if I were to step into your point of view it would actually sound to me like the song is in some key other than A♭.
As in, I think I'd still be able to jive to a song I like if I hear it from someone else's perspective because the musical intervals between every pair of of the notes in the song would still be the same. The intervals dictating how we perceive harmony would not vary from individual to individual.
If it were not the case that the musical interval between notes is the same for everyone, then we'd definitely know about it by now empirically. Some people would experience music drastically different from others and some people would be way off if you ask them to guess the interval between two notes
If what I call orange-red may very well be what you call blue and so on, can it likewise - analogously - be the case that what I call the musical pitch A_4=440Hz is what you call E_5=659.25Hz?
The lower and upper bounds on what frequencies you the reader can perceive as pitch are on average only going to be slightly different than my lower and upper bounds. While abiding by the constraint that we probably shouldn't be that different in that regard, can it nonetheless be that when I hear a song that you and I both agree is in the key of A Major and I prefer a cover of the song that you and I agree is in E Major where the singer has transposed their part up by seven semitones, there may be someone out there who hears the original song in what I would actually consider E Major?
That is, if I were able to step into your mind and hear a song which we both agree is in A Major, could the version that I'm hearing through your ears - metaphorically - sound like it's actually not at all what I would consider A Major.
It's a well-known phenomenon that as you increase the Hz from zero, the sound of a steady rhythmic pulse (beats evenly spaced in time) becomes the sound of some musical pitch. Likewise, if you speed up a repeating polyrhythm what you get eventually after having sped it up enough is actually just the sound of a chord.
If you take an extreme case, can a sound that one person perceives as a polyrhythm be at the same time perceived instead as a number of simultaneous pitches (a chord) by a different person? That seems like a rather extraordinary thing to think about.
Based on what I can understand it seems to me that the perception of pitch is a neat trick our brain performs when the brain chooses not to perceive a series of beats as individual beats but instead as a collective to which one can assign a so-called "pitch".
An illustrative consideration is what it's like to hear sounds as a dog. Things are appreciably lower pitched for them in their subjective experience of a given sound. You can imagine then that you can create a low-pitched enough song which to dogs would sound like a rhythmic ensemble rather than having a discernible melodic line or pitch at any point.
It's also worth pointing out that dogs experience the passage time at a faster rate than we do, by which I only mean that a minute feels much longer to them. That being the case, you can imagine that some very low pitched continuous note to which we humans would typically assign a pitch is heard by dogs instead as a series of evenly spaced beats, albeit a series of evenly spaces beats which all occur very close to one another in time
Consider a scenario in which you are recording audio of a singer singing a note. Now imagine that you use Audacity or some other software to slow down the audio by a great amount. The more you slow the audio down, the more clearly you will be able to hear a series of individual beats in rapid succession rather than one continuous, sustained note.