I think you may have some reading difficulty, but I'm sticking with it. There comes a point in high fidelity audio where there's no objectivity in terms of what sounds better. Oh sure, you can say that this or that has better charts or graphs, but that doesn't mean it sounds better. Otherwise everyone would have the same headphones, wouldn't they? If objectively better existed, there would only be one headphone at the top that everyone owns, and yet, somehow... that's not the case. Funny, you'd almost think it's all SUBJECTIVE or something.
Your statement "I'm really of the opinion that eventually there is no such thing as objectively better" and following..., is a logical 'fallacy of relative to absolute'. You claim that all things are the same because the values or parameters of a few number of things within a whole are [presumably] debatable therefore the values or parameters of all things are debatable. In other words you claim that all headphones are the same and the miserable Beats junk is as good as Fostex TH900 because there is a disagreement over whether Sennheiser HD800 are better headphones than HiFiMan He-6. Or in other other words, you say that because some women are whores therefore all women are whores. If all things are the same, am I as good a composer as Beethoven ?
A related note : A major error and stumbling block of argumentation on head-fi of what is 'better', is the lack of defining what constitutes 'good'. Members who have wild notions about what is good regarding the sound, pass their subjective preferences as objective values.
"If objectively better existed, there would only be one headphone at the top that everyone owns..."
Not really, it only proves that many have no clue what is good sound and also that many cannot afford to spend 1000 plus on headphones. [...consider also an important variable of people having unequal hearing abilities and the lack of education and sophistication]. There are many who consider 'Lady Gaga' to be better than Mozart.
Edited by zorin - 4/5/14 at 11:16pm