I have no problem with your using your own earbuds or amps as a reference, meaning in your world, it is the reference. Excuse however those of us if you will, who had spent years in studios, on stage playing, writing about music and reviewing audio equipment for calling for "a standard" other than your or another's choice of playback equipment which can never retain the title of a standard. Meaning live music in a real hall, to which ALL other humans can relate. The alternative that you are suggesting is that we all use your standard, or another's standard, your choice of earbuds or another's choice of DAC. None of which can meet the standards required of a standard - a ruler if you will. Something that doesn't change once the venue, instrument, and musician has been agreed to. Accordingly, live sound cannot be replaced by one man's choice of what he believes a standard should be. That kind of man might believe that a transfer function analyzer or scope should measure electrical characteristics as each brand comes up with a different result. Each brand then becomes its own ruler; its own measure. An inch measured with one ruler may calculate 0.9 inches; with another ruler you get 1.1 inches, both rulers claim to represent a genuine inch. To suggest that any equipment can be a "standard" permanently is to suggest that a ruler be made of a rubber band.
While it can be argued that most recordings have no bearing vis-a-vis the live experience, as JA does for good reasons and with reservations, some recordings DO have a bearing on live music; many records do; and regardless, that fact does not change the need for a steady and accurate ruler, a measure, the standard by which those recordings and the equipment they play back are evaluated. One can for example record a single live instrument right in between two speakers (the monitors) and evaluate the recording and the equipment that plays it back in the same room (and in the same acoustics) in real time. At that point in time you can argue if you wish, whether or not the recording has a bearing on reality or the quality of the system.
In other words, as in most things in life, everything is so, unless it isn't.
The true test of any equipment - because we are playing back recording on, equipment of one or another kind - is its faithfulness to the mic feed behind which is a live musician (meaning the microphone "hears" differently from the human ear that is usually in another location.) Put another way, one CAN, use monitors (speakers or headsets) to evaluate CHANGES to the sound from the live mic feed with respect to other playback equipment, using the imperfect monitors (and all are imperfect theoretically) to evaluate changes from the live sound. We can also substitute monitors or different makes to make a similar test.
Let's take a good analog recorder and a good digital recorder, and our test will be to determine which is more faithful to the mic feed. Easy enough, no? One of them will be audibly and measurably more accurate: differences heard from your recording v. playing back the line/mic feed directly. You should hear, or be able to measure some, possibly very slight, difference between the mic feed and the recording...the mic feed being "live." You cannot test the same two recordings, one feeding a BOSE and another feeding a BBC monitor while one is being driven by one amp and the other by another amp.
Because at this point we are not listening to the live sound directly with our ears, but through the monitors, we are not hearing the live sound, only the closest sound to the live - the mic/line feed. Because BOTH components under test (analog and digital recorders) had recorded the same "live" sound now played back through the same monitor, we can, or should be able to, hear the differences between the two recorders we are testing. In other words, the live sound is the standard by which we have access by walking a few steps into the studio or listening through calibrated monitors; and for short term memory it works well enough.
However, if we wanted to test which recorder is the better recorder, more faithfully having recorded what we had just heard live in the studio, we cannot use the recordings themselves, one against the other, and call one the standard and the other a failure. Neither one can become the standard. We still have to return to the live sound playing in the studio for the standard against which we make a judgement. What we can determine is which of the two recordings, using the same mic, is CLOSER to the live sound, making at this point in time, arguably, a temporary equipment standard against which other similar components may be judged.
For a time that is, until a better prospect for a new standard comes along that provides greater transparency to the source (less character that can be attributed only to the DUT - the device under test.)
These tests need to be repeated over and over ad infinitum, because technology moves forward and the earbuds you prefer today have already been superseded by newer and better designs. And that, is the reason you will always need a standard that can never be superseded - live sound played in a real room, a ruler that will not stretch or bend.
That piano or saxophone played by the same musicians in the same room will sound pretty much the same tomorrow and next year. The earbud you prefer also will sound more or less the same, but a better earbud will sound closer to that piano and that musician in that room today and tomorrow. The new earbud is not going to be designed to match your preference for brand, cosmetics, or frame of mind. It will be designed precisely how I explained above, first by electrical testing and manipulation, second by listening to music, not your earbuds.
You can now ask me if I care what John Atkinson wrote.