You didn't understand my post because you didn't understand the Sonarworks article. Sonarworks measured M50x, and I assume they got something similar to RAA raw graph, because it's the same model. Then they compensated that raw in accordance with their ideal (to see how far it is from it - that's the blue lines), which I'm arguing looks something similar to Harman in raw form. Then they calibrated (equalized) the headphones and measured again - and that's the purple lines - close to their flat, compensated ideal. If the measurements of the equalized headphones were posted raw, not compensated (which is made look flat, because flat is the ideal in audio people's lingo and because it's generally an easy to understand form), it would look close to the Harman target curve (because of the reasons I laid out in the preceding post). But, yeah, I suppose if the IEC standard, according to which the raws are made, was changed to be the same as Sonarworks' compensated, that would make a flat measurement the same as the most used sound signature. Or if all the people doing mastering in the world agreed to turn up those frequencies that are different between IEC raw and a compensated graph and then the gear that looks flat according to current IEC would sound right. While the compensated flat wouldn't anymore. Yeah, this really is nowhere in a billion mile radius close to the name of this topic. I like off-topic almost as much as graphs.