Depends on whether or not the target used in that comparison was for 5128.
Yes, I didn't trace it, but from memory it just looks exactly like the GRAS Harman Curve. I'm ok with an average, afterall I like the way the Headphone Harman Target sounds as is on GRAS, but it's true that certainly for the bass at least people fell into different camps of how much bass people liked in the Harman Research, so from that point of view tolerance bands on bass make sense. As for tolerance bands on rest of frequency range, then I suppose the issue I have with that for reviews is you can end up with some very different sounding headphones if you're at the outer edges of the bands in various places, and depending on the combination of how it varies within that band through the frequency range then it can have different effects, sometimes the changes would change the overall balance of the headphone in whichever direction be it warmer or brighter, sometimes the changes would balance each other out and the overall balance would remain the same albeit with different emphasis within the frequency range. So with having frequency ranges/bands in a review then it's not like you know what you're getting with that headphone just because it's falling within the accepted bands which could cause confusion and lack of reliability for readers in terms of knowing what they're getting with a headphone "just because it falls within the accepted bands". Another problem with another headphone target is that people don't know how it sounds until they try it, and then I guess they'd tweak the headphone to suit themselves around that average, so they'd eventually build up a knowledge of what the target sounds like for them and how to EQ headphones to their own taste from that data, but we can already do that with the GRAS Harman Target, so it just adds another confusing target......so my gut feeling is that it doesn't help people having another target (I can't say "standard" at this point!).
