I understand the idea of having an ideal FR target as a primary design goal, although I think that there are other characteristics that would be valuable to asses.
My main criticism is that whereas "flat" is easy enough to justify and characterize, the flat equivalent for HP is not clear. As you say, there are several ONGOING efforts to determine this ideal FR.
A question: an HP with a perfect FR (using whatever current standard) would sound identical as a set of "flat" speakers? I just don't think so, that is my hypothesis. Unless yours is that they would, then why are we striving for this "speaker like" goal. Maybe there is something more for HP than sounding like speakers.
Another question: a set of flat speakers cannot be told apart from the live performance? Only THIS would comply with your own definition of fidelity. "Flat speaker sound" is not the end of the line. I haven't heard a flat speaker system, but I would think that room acoustics also intervene. Then, which are the equivalent to proper room acoustics for HP? I believe that there is much more than DF equalization to this since I think that we can still distinguish HP from speakers.
You should keep in mind that not all research is disclosed in public forums such as the AES journals, much research done by the companies behind the curtains and never released to the public, except as technology demonstrations without the theoretical/experimental development. This only makes sense, why make public something which cost you so much? I see this everyday on my line of work. What I'm saying is that, whether you like it or not, companies such as senn, beyer or audeze are likely investing some money on defining a FR goal. It is normal that such FR evolves as times passes by, the hd6xx are quite old now, it is reasonable to think that senn improved/modified their FR target.
The differences across the lineup of the manufacturers I wouldn't think that are explained only on a technical basis, there surely are market elements also.
So headroom FR measurements are bogus and Tyll's are perfect.... INCONSISTENCY I say. When you have several data sources which don't agree you just don't take the one you personally prefer as the correct one, that wouldn't be "objective". Do you think that Tyll's are better? Based on what? Methods and equipment are not sufficient to determine this. In the scientific community repeatability and numerous third party reproductions, i.e. CONSISTENCY, are needed to ascertain that something is true.
The same goes for the CSD measurements, even if there was a good understanding of how those CSD must look like, other than "common sense" and dogmatic asseverations made by those "who know".
One must trust the knowledge produced by science, however who is to say what it science and what pseudo-science. Using scientific "tools" does not instantly makes something into science. Proper use of the scientific methods does.
I believe that at this moment there is still no agreement, and I mean agreement in facts not of the community, of what is technically "correct" for HP. When I buy a senn or any other flagship what Im buying is what their current research and state of the art of the art points to be the ideal.
I'm not trying to bash the original article. However, the data points, the deductions and the methods still require a LOT of development for they to support statements such as "under engineered mess" or that HP A is four alphabet letters better than HP B. That would be almost as silly as saying that a better silver and gold 1.5m cable will improve the sound of my HP because some MEASURABLE improvement in some metric. Come on, when do objectivists, one of which I pretend to be, became so skewed?
Edited by gatucho - 12/28/13 at 12:23pm