In light of heavy discussion that has gone one in the portable forums about measurements for IEMs, this thread is intended to provide a consistent space to discuss the issues that dominate the portable space, including, but not limited to:
 
(1) General confusion about the interpretation of quantitative data
(2) Basic information about the premise and approach of measurements for insert earphones
(3) The scientific approach and its application in objective assessment of high-end audio, e.g. statistical analysis, repeatability, accountability
(4) Individual physical/physiological/pathophysiological variances in listener perception
(5) Reliable verbal communication about the personal perception of audio
(6) Listener psychology, e.g. placebo/nocebo, group psychology, etc.

First of all: Yes, I do find FR graphs useful ... but mostly when the same source provides me with such graphs both for headphones/earphones I own and for others I'm interested in. Then, comparing both kinds allows me to get an idea of how I would hear through the latter kind.
 
Otherwise, I'm at a loss: In itself, neither reading a raw FR graph nor its "compensated" counterpart (compensated for a "standard ear" which, from the graphs I've seen and what I've experienced, can differ widely from mine) helps me much.
 
This is a prime example of my problem with compensated FR graphs from a single source:
 

 
That is certainly not my perceived response. I love the Etys, but I hear a lot less bass and a gobsmash more treble.