I don't get your point.
I've never heard the M-80, but how would that change my opinion of the M-100? Headphone manifacturers don't make new, more expensive models to "improve" upon the "lesser" models. They make new models to offer a different sound, to offer a product that suits different uses and purposes. And each one of us has different tastes, and of course, a different perception of sound and music.
If the M-100 really "give you the bass the track fully intended", then why so many other headphones don't even attempt to give that amount of bass? Why are so many other headphones "muddy" and "bass heavy", but the M-100 sound should be considered accurate and true to the source? Why can't I get even a fraction of the M-100's bass quantity with my ATH-AD2000, not even with bass boost on my iPod (BTW, the AD2000 are excellent with classical)? Why don't the "92% accurate" Ety ER-4s offer that amount of bass?
Treble-heavy sound gets trashed a lot. Those who trash treble-heavy sound are the people who call treble-light headphones "mellow" and "non-fatiguing". You see a lot of them.
I've tried the M-100 amped. The sound didn't change that much. The amp boosted frequencies other than bass, but didn't make the M-100 more interesting or exciting. Rather, it made the M-100 flatter. Less thumping, but less... unique. It took away some of its "personality". The opposite happens with other cans I own, like the AD2000, the HD558, the K518DJ.
I think that saying that people mostly judge sound based on looks and what the headphones are supposed to be suited for, is quite rash and offensive. Many people here have listened to a lot of music through so many different headphones and sources. And not all of them have settled for the best-looking, best-reviewed, most expensive gear available. They have settled for what they liked the best. And many of them still haven't stopped trying out new gear.
I know what music I like, and I know how I like it to sound. The M-100 don't make the majority of the music I listen to, sound the way I like it. I don't judge the M-100 based on what it's supposed to be suited too; I listened to it, and I know that it isn't suited to MY PERSONAL TASTE. And heaven knows just anyone would want it to sound wonderful based on looks, because it's a beautifully designed product.
So, again, I don't get your point. I don't think someone suggested that the M-80 is OBJECTIVELY better than the M-100. Rather, someone simply prefers the sound of the M-80, and I don't see anything wrong with that. As for my previus post, I responded to someone asking if the M-100 sounds similar to the IE80, and based on my experience with the IE8, I said that it really doesn't. Very different timbre, very different signature.
That's fine. We all have different tastes and opinions on products.
I can't change your opinion and taste neither can you change mine. I simply wanted to give my perspective.