I got bored after a dozen pages and closed the tab. Seems to rank headphones on how well they are engineered, not how good they sound. That's nice for engineers and all, but does absolutely nothing for a listener like me.
Frankly, I don't care for measurements of any sort anymore. Been down that route before and found that most of the phones I tried based on measurements ranged from overly polite to downright insipid. Now I just test as many cans as possible and buy the ones I like best. The only time I've checked out InnerFidelity's measurements in the last couple of years was a few months ago when I got curious about a certain current amp and wanted to check out impedance curves to find out why it drove different headphones in different ways.. That was it.
I just select headphones based solely on what my ears tells me, how they make my favourite music sound, and how comfortable they are on my head. Frequency response, square wave graphs and other forms of rocket-science just end up confusing me and clouding my judgement. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the brightest spark in the room, but it's not like headphones could ever do a lap around the Isle of Man or Nurburgring anyway. Not saying the "engineering" is unimportant, because I do care about aspects like build-quality and whatnot, but there are many unmeasureable aspects I consider more important when it comes to audio.
I'd wager that many headphones I like are graded poorly in that study of his. Props to the chap for conducting it, and more power to you if you find the information useful, but to me it's about as informative as watching a bunch of squirrels grading different breeds of acorn. Won't really change the way I go about my own headphone ratings.
....