I think Stevesie might be speaking out against measurements because he's scared of being held accountable and looking bad for something like praising Grados as "neutral" or "accurate" and he'd rather have free reign to say whatever he wants. 

The Sextett is another good example.  Sounds a lot better than the CSD's here suggest.

i think so too. might have lp's instead but i don't think they would measure too different compared to your EP's. only gripe i have with my LP's is around 8k slight peak. it's only noticeable with certain tracks. also not really being too picky but i wished the treble/top had bit better clarity like my 240DF's as well, but from the low-bass to the midrange my LP's are glorious sounding and still one of my favorites right next to my DF's.

i also have a feeling something like the pioneer monitor 10 wouldn't measure too well either maybe but do sound very good to me and one of best closed headphones i ever used that i remember. sucks i sold it though.

And distortion right?  Those Coby's measured fairly clean but sounded like a muffled resonant mish mash

The best way to use measurements is to find something you like and then use it's measurements as a reference point to estimate how well you'll like other things.

Quote from: ujamerstand on May 06, 2012, 08:08:43 AM

Please explain Wharfedale ID-1. Kthxbye.

    Yeah, that's a great example.  I haven't heard them so I can't make any guesses.  But I can say that we haven't seen CSD's of them.  Square waves is only one aspect.  I'm pretty sure I could make an ortho nail the square wave and sound like rubbish.  But still, if all the measurements we can do come out poorly with the ID1 and they sound good, then we clearly aren't measuring everything. 

anyone want them measured? I know where to find them.

I would best describe myself as being on the fence. This applies to headphones and most any audio equipment. I do believe that the appropriate measurements can identify some areas of deficiency and that extreme badness in measurements usually tells the truth. The trouble comes from , for the sake of argument, the LCD3 FR plots - people making comments about which ones are inflected versus the chosen subspecies. The CSD plots provide a lot of data, not all of which I understand but I can see how ringing at certain frequencies relates to the audio truth. Perhaps even more difficult to interpret are the THD measurements of amplification devices. I know for a fact that I frequently prefer amps that have a "higher" THD ( 0.001 ) versus those that are 0.00000000001%    , yet most people balk at the notion that any given amplification device have as high a distortion rating as 1/10% . Nelson Pass's FirstWatt series would be popular examples here. There are so many extreme views, I believe we need to learn to give ourselves more credit and trust what we hear, regardless of confounding data. This will mean that we will have different opinions as to what sounds good and that's ok..dB

edit - reading this before I posted makes me sound more in the SG camp , but I am not anti measurements. I can see the benefit especially if you know something is "off" but can't pinpoint it and the data then identifies a quirk which you can relate to your experience. Bottom line is that not everything that measures well sounds great and vice versa