I believe there is a middle ground. The LCD-3 is just way too laid back. The HE-6 is indeed somewhere in between, but it does have some issues with "etch". The HE-6 is fast sounding, but like most other orthos, not very resolving. The LCD-3, if you can hear past its laid back nature, is actually more resolving than the HE-6. The HFM's take a brute force approach with big magnets and coarse traces on the diaphragm. The Audezes have very fine traces on the diaphragm which results in better efficiency and better ability to reproduce micro details.
Dynamic driver technology tends to be more resolving than planar. It's really just a matter of Sennheiser making a headphone with the HD800's resolving capabilities which isn't as bright. The Anax modded HD800 or HD800 with EQ sound just as resolving to me, but without pain when used with rock or popular music recordings. The reason classical or natural instrument recordings tends to be fine with the HD800 is that they are much more bandwidth limited. One can even argue that the HD800s brightness works in favor of recordings which are bandwidth limited in the treble.
Moar treble is like bad photoshop sharpening on a 640x480 image (assuming low resolution). Moar resolving is like 6000x4000 image from a good camera/lens.
The best approach relies on a combination of ear training and experience (particularly studio / pro, building amps or speakers) and measurements to confirm and keep us honest. There's much more to sound than measurements. But measurements are one of the basic tools. The trained ear should be the final decider.
+1 well said. I used to compare expensive Neuman mics to modded ones that cost thousands of dollar less and were very shocked to find out how comparable these mics were.