This is exactly the sort of reason that people come to have the impression that measurements don't matter: overly broad theses based on single measurements and inadequately justified dispositive language. There is no such thing as an illusion of resolution unless its distortion masquerading as source material, which you won't know from a simple graph such as this. If it's there, it's there; it doesn't matter if something happens to make it easier for you to hear. A comprehensive test of headphones in terms of "accuracy" would probably involve testing several types of distortion, including using a multitone system with dynamic amplitude modulation as the reference and checking for transient IM or something of that sort. Frequency response with what is probably a unitone system is not a dispositive statement of a headphone's quantitative performance, especially once you factor in individual ear geometry, performance of one's amp and source, and more sophisticated measurements of audio performance both quantitatively and philosophically. The last thing, I think, also calls into question whether some concept of "accuracy" is even relevant; it may very well not be.
So, moral of the story: If you don't like the K701/2, you don't like it. Trying to objectify your argument using some frequency response graphs, however, doesn't lend much fundamental credibility to the disagreement.
By the way, the ns10s are not flat. They just translate well to good consumer recordings. May be its easy to get used to them for making good recordings, maybe they are similarly voiced with a lot of consumer audio, who knows why they became a standard. Maybe they were just the best for the price back then for all the studios to be able to afford
