cheers Jensy, I heard pretty much the same thing for most of the above.

from memory the eq I used was
q=2, f=5.5, db=-2.5,
q=1.5, f=9000, db=-1.5,
(I don't think 7k bothered me as much, rather the 10k one was more noticable for me. It's not a sibilant harsh, but a metalic upper treble excess energy type one for me)
q=2.0, f=50, db=+2.5 (I think it feels like there's too much mid bass, but it's actually the sub-bass not being prominent enough. which is sort of saying the same thing)
As mentioned the bass gradient is too linear, and on higher port settings too steply bleeds into lower mids :}


I think Lear were going for an overall neutral-natural type feel with tunable bass, so maybe the 5.5k bits are a part of it, but I don't think it should be there.

re bass - looking at Rin's graph, probs isn't too much 180-250 or even 250-500 on BD4.2 at 12 o'clock http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2014/04/lear-bd42-next-generation-hybrid.html (definitely is closer to max)
compare to say http://www.head-fi.org/t/704283/t-peos-announce-a-releasing-of-h-300-and-start-pre-selling-compensation-sale/60#post_10375953
methinks sub-bass/bass - need more

I'm getting the feeling that 12 oclock isn't actually where the knob is "supposed" to be. 
 
It's hard for me to gauge where they were aiming with it, considering the sound changes so drastically with the knob adjustments..

Great review - I didn't know about the basehead thread - I love it! The 1964 Ears v*'s belong! As for the Lear - you state that they are double bore - I saw elsewhere that they were quad bore with two of them being metal - and the other two regular - so it would appear on a cursory glance to be only two - I wonder if that is the case.... Again, great review!