>I can get behind an 80/20 weighting of preference to literally hearing different. I'm still holding onto a shard of hearing differently because I don't know how some people can listen to Beyerdynamics (990 and 1990) even after testing headphones with different signatures. They both pierce my soul haha.

As I said in my first post it is not entirely clear how that is perceived by all people. But I know from reading Floyd Toole's book and doing some research, because I also find this rather facinating (Why do people love speakers/headphones with ear piercing highs?). That hearing loss could also be a potential reason why some people seemingly enjoy it, besides what is already stated see here for example noise induced hearing loss 'notches' https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Audiograms-showing-onset-and-progression-of-noise-induced-hearing-loss-First-a-notch_fig3_264555852. Which quite coincedently are exactly around the treble peak of a beyer headphone... With normal hearing loss it also kind of acts like a low pass on the sound making the highs less audible; https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Age-related-hearing-loss-according-to-the-International-Organization-for-Standardization_fig1_338597788

Here is the link to this subreddits wiki page supporting this statement/comment, that headphones are indeed not always minimum phase over the entire bandwith.

>My experience with the 109 differs from most. And it sounds different to me than it does to someone else.

Let me first start of saying that what you're hearing is not wrong, I 100% believe you. This is important because the reason you hear what you hear could have in my opinion based on what I know about this topics and what I read could have 2 reasons. The first is your hrtf doesn't match with the mean as pointed out in the paper we're talking about; you literally hear different.

The other reason is probably that you are used to other headphones which have a different response and because the meze probably has more highs than the other headphone you perceive it as too much highs. This means that the error is not that you hear different meaning (e.g. you have a different hrtf which was the point I was making) but that you are used to other headphones or just have a different preference. Comparing the Meze to the headphones in your flair seem to confirm that it indeed has more treble meaning the target represents your hrtf probably pretty well.

Really my point is that we are (most of the time, 80%+ of the people) not hearing differently but that we have different preferences (or known/used to targets), this is also supported in the harman target research paper which pointed out that some people like more bass and some less highs. This means in short (in my scientific based opinion at least) that if we both listen to a pair of dt990's after having listened to hd650's for a good while (so it is our definition of neutral and our only audible memory of a reference) that we both would think the dt990 is a bright sounding headphone and not still have different ratings because our ears are literally different.

>So how a headphone looks on its FR, and how it is perceived by the individual, is totally subjective.

I find this highly debatable. First of all as the study points out the individual hrtf is basicly the same as the mean up until 2khz for open ear canal and 5khz for blocked ear canal. This means that at least the bass and mid frequencies are perceived the same. Which you can also see on your picture where the lines basicly deviate 1db up or down at worst, thus we can say based on the just noticable difference for sound (1db) the stimulus is pereceived the same. Above 2khz and 5khz the difference get's larger but still when you look at the right graph which shows the individual hrtf variations for +-1 std are still very low (+-1.5db variation for ~70% of the people) under 7/8khz. Above that deviation get's quite big but that is also the area where tweeters stop to play, music has less content and hearing loss starts to become very frequent. Thus the importance of that is debatable imo.

It really depends on how noticable amplitude change is perceived to be but based on the known theory and my own experience I would say that for at least the majority of the people most headphone will sound the same, differences probably will be in perceived treble levels which other research also proofs (treble sensitivity etc.).

>It’s insignificant in context but I know context is probably extremelyhard for you to understand. When I say “someone being obese has noeffect on you” and someone replies “yes it does, it makes my insurancepremiums more expensive because of fat people’s cost on the healthcaresystem.” That 4% IS insignificant.

It literally isn't as proven 10 times in this thread, the 173 billion dollars required to pay for it doesn't just fall out of the sky? That has to be paid by taxes or personal contribution, either way it HAS to be paid someway which means I will either way foot the bill either by inflation or (in)direct contribution. That is indisputable. You can make all kinds of mental gymnastics or share your invalid opinions but the fact still is that it cost money and affects our economy (meaning it isn't insignificant) as literally said by the cdc themselves; https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/about-obesity/why-it-matters.html. It is beyond me how you cannot fathom that increased healthcare needs does result in extra cost for (healthy) people but maybe that is to much to ask from an average redditor.

Honestly can’t believe how one can claim that 4% is insignificant when talking about the equivalent 173 billion dollars it represent. First off all 4% is not insignificant by any definition of that word but you probably wouldn’t know that. Nor is 173 billion, there are literally countries worth less, by ANY definition it is a huge amount. You’re probably trolling but damn what a braindead comments. Imagine thinking 4% is insignificant and repeating it multiple times with such confidence.

It's from this paper https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19436 , so one may take a look there, I personally wouldn't know exactly why. The general point is that if you are far (i.e. 20+db like crin) below or above ~80db you are essentially not listening to the sound as intended and may miss either bass or highs. The itu standard (ITU-R BS.1116-3) states 78 dBA, maybe they have a better (open) explanation? https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116/en

Most music is mastered at “reference level” meaning around 85db c weighted, if you are significant below that the tonal balance of the music isn’t correct anymore due to the equal loudness curves of our hearing; meaning that if you listen at lower sound levels the earphone should have significant more bass and highs to compensate for lack of volume; meaning how we perceive the level of bass and treble is not the same at different sound levels. It thus has nothing to do with blasting your ears but more with not listening at proper reference volumes and thus potentially misjudging the device under test.