The read is interesting for the general idea and useful guidance, but I am also genuinely concerned if the detail ratings are based on actual rendered detail or the perceived detail. For example an emphasis on mids will demonstrate ostensibly superior midrange detail retrieval (i.e. SE530); a spike in the treble could make an IEM seem like detail monsters when actually there is a false exaggeration of the actual information (i.e. ER4); an emphasized low-end can blur the overall perception of resolution (you get the picture here).
I understand the concern but I don't really share it because I don't see anything in the review that points to that. It's just speculation on my part though. Anyway, any one review should be taken with much salt because it is all subjective. It is actually that human frailty, not the numerical analysis, that I look for. I am reading to see what moved the reviewer no matter how even-handed he tried to be. On that score, perceptions are everything.
Edited by cooperpwc - 7/16/10 at 7:40am