Do you know anything about this person's measurement rig? It's calibration? The number of measurements taken? The physical placement of the headhones? Do you know anything about the headphones measured? The third seems to have been cherry-picked to be measured precisely because it had issues. Were the others damaged? Pre-production? Different pad wear? Less/more time on the drivers? Why assume that Audeze has poor QC, rather than assuming that this was not a reliable measuring? I've now read through that cat's measurements and posts, and I still have all those concerns about their reliability. Not from bias, but from the opposite: I simply have no reason to trust that these are reliable measurements until I have assurances about those concerns. However, let's disregard that and return to the broader point. Even assuming that these three headphones show unit variation, you have no basis no assert that this problem of inconsistent production is endemic to Audeze. Frankly, you have only the scantest evidence that it is a problem with production on this particular model. You cannot extrapolate that out as you have done. That is an unsubstantiated claim. And, while you now seem to suggest that your motivation is to push Audeze towards higher QC, you were clearly trying to steer people away from Audeze by claiming that the headphones all have considerable variation between units as a result of poor manufacturing standards: Overstating the case like that demonstrates that you are the one with strong bias.