And yet despite all those technical graphs it is also based on his subjective opinion as he admitted and he also said "may include bias" due to his ears comparing it to their 'so-called' reference headphones.
Which to me is not a truly accurate or valid assessment.
I have expensive VST effect plugins that i use to produce music, and some of the 'technically' perfect EQ's and compressors on the market with phase-linear response sound bloody awful, and yet the digital emulations of 60's compressors and EQ's (which technically on a graph are a mess) are the best sounding most musical and pleasing effects units out there, every major record-label and studio including myself use perfect digital emulations of some of the oldest music production tools on the planet, which on a technical graph look a shambles, and yet in real-world-use no serious producer would dare to be without them, they are responsible for the tone in most of the best music ever released, including today's stuff, and not much music is released without use of these tools, they impart a magic translucency and glue to the mix that cannot be measured by graphs, moreover every reputable 'golden-ear' mastering engineer on the planet endorses them without reservation, such as the LA2A and 1176LN compressor and the Pultec EQ. Sometimes there is unknown factors that effect sound which do not register on a technical graph, simple as that. What looks flat on a graph and what sounds flat are two totally different things.
And anyway, so much for the golden-ears review you linked us to, look at his rating for transparency of the Shure 550's... ********!! I can hear a mile off that the Shures in real-world listening are about as close to transparent as any headphone can get, plus extremely clear and natural sounding; i listen to music on them that i am 'totally' familiar with, so his transparency rating was an error, the clarity on the Shure 550's IMO is fantastic, go listen to a pair and listen to all the clear detail dripping out of them; so it looks like that guy needs to buy some more gold to put inside his ears.
And no matter what, i have listened 'intently' many times to the Shure 840's, they sound bloody terrible.
To answer Currawong, i listen to Celine Dion, Whitney Houston, and Michael Jackson when i'm in the mood for analyzing and enjoying the details in music production, but of course i listen to almost anything that is well produced, any genre of music well-made is worthy of being listened to and i enjoy it as long as it is well produced. When at home i plug my headphones into a Presonus USB audio interface with crystal clear 24bit/196khz DAC's and a totally neutral onboard amp. The Presonus company makes high-end audio interfaces for Music Production studios, and this company knows very well how to produce converters and amps and audio interfaces for serious music production, a lot of the big-name production studios in the world rely on their audio interfaces to get the job done.
To answer your other question, I make Hardhouse (doof doof music 4/4 to the floor). To let you know, hardhouse is not about being conservative or having cliche melody, it's about innovation and unpredictability and quirkiness, the individual character and 'punch' that the producer puts into it, grinding hard bass and flipped-out coherent driving lead-lines and pulsating pads working together as a whole, we are all out there challenging each other to create the biggest euphoric response from the crowd in a nightclub (regardless of whether they are on drugs or not), and Hardhouse is a medium for producers like me to inject our own personal character and expression on the world, but yeah, there is definitely bad examples of it coming through from try-hards who are not in it for the love of it. But at the moment i've gone off the beaten track for a little while and am working on a dance-track to take on Gangnam style, and so far it's looking good from all the preliminary feedback i've had from listeners.