I understand why a non-comparative scoring system is used. It's really no different than how a headphone would get reviewed on a site like Amazon. Take the KSC75 for example. It's an amazing headphone and absolutely deserves 4-5 stars. No consensus of people would agree to rate the KSC75 as being only a 2-3 star headphone, but with a relative scoring system it would need to be down there to make room for the better headphones. The KSC75 is good, but it isn't on par with the best mid-fi phones. Even the best mid-fi headphones would need to make room for things like flagships, so they would be closer to 3-4 stars only. 4-5 stars would be reserved for the absolute best (flagships).
At the same time, I can understand the confusion of using the non-comparative scoring system, especially since people tend to skip over the bolded text emphasizing it.
In contrast, you have something like
Battle Of The Flagships where a scoring system is employed, it's comparative, and there is a decent amount of time spent on describing the methodology. My constructive feedback would possibly then be to work this guide towards something more extensive and complete like the flagship comparison or possibly keep it in the spirit of a guide where things don't have hard scores and impressions are emphasized instead.
Are you just suggesting that MLE should sort the headphones by "absolute performance" instead of the current "by price" sorting?
The only actual scores given in David Mahler's thread are the "For the Price" letter grades he assigns headphones (ie, value), where something like the SR009 scores lower than an AKG K501. I feel like sorting by absolute performance wouldn't necessarily be a solution, as people would then keep asking things like
"I see you put the Q701 higher than the HD558 on the list, but exactly how much better is the Q701 than the HD558???"
No matter which route you go with, there's no way to quantify exactly how much better one headphone is than the other - which is a common question that new members repeatedly ask about headphones. Ranking by absolute performance (like David Mahler's Thread) won't answer that either. The only way to quantify them would be to assign an absolute performance score (not just an ordered ranking) to each headphone, but I don't think two similar headphones should try and be quantified in that way as personal preferences play such a huge role. People would just look at the number and say
"Oh, the HE400 has higher overall score than the MA900. I guess I should go with the HE400 then." Even though they might find the recessed mids on the HE400 to be a major problem (whereas the mids are a strength on the MA900) - something they could have gleamed if they had read the review instead of just comparing scores and going with the best scoring one.
Ultimately headphone reviews are not and should not be about numbers, as even if two headphones scored exactly the same they will still sound very different. There's no quick way for someone to "cheat" and quickly assess a headphone's sound by just reading a numbered score. You have to
read the review in order to try understand what the headphone's own personal signature is and its soundstage performance in order to get an idea of how it sounds. This is what makes researching and shopping for headphones tough (and of course the fact that the majority of them aren't available to demo at stores). After trying different headphones for a while and developing some experience and your own personal tastes it then becomes easier to understand how a headphone will sound by reading a review - and more importantly whether or not YOU will like it.