No they can't. Loudspeakers (of all kinds) can either faithfully convert electrical signals into the vibrations they represent, or they can't. Equalizer presets can be better / worse for certain listening habits. There is no reason, when even a $5 MP3 player has EQ presets, that headphones shouldn't be aiming for a flat frequency-response curve.
Now, admittedly, there might be some preference axis between being able to faithfully replicate high amplitude signals, vs. having low impedance and therefore being kinder to the batteries of portable devices (and/or not requiring an extra in-line portable headphone amp.) But other than that one distinction, headphones can really only be "better" or "worse" at doing their one job.
Harman has done some really interesting research on this - https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-target-respo...
That is: in most digital artistic media, the goal of the reproduction process is to faithfully carry across the art (and engineering) that "went in" on the other side. Listeners can tweak to their preference from there, but the baseline should be to replicate the work as the artist experiences it, rather than as the artist expects their audience to experience it. (An analogy: the "default", pre-choice-of-audience way to reproduce a painting shouldn't involve a frame and gallery wall, but rather should involve the painting standing alone as a canvas on an easel in a room in the same lighting conditions it was painted in.)
I can't agree with this. I don't think it's right at all. Art is targeted at a broad band of senses, from aesthetic through sensory to emotional. You're hung up on the narrow band of sensory reproduction, but that isn't what's most important to actual humans.
Take an example: some electro house track that person A might have heard on a night out, where they had a really good time. They would have heard it in the middle of a crowd (dampening a significant chunk of the sound), probably overly loud, probably with the bass pumped up.
If person A later listens to that track on studio headphones focused on faithfully carrying across engineering and "art", they'll be hearing the mechanics of the music and how it was constructed, but it will be subjectively a poorer reproduction of the remembered moment and experience. They'd actually be better off listening on much lower quality headphones that had boosted bass and muddy reproduction that let different frequencies intermingle, to make sure it doesn't sound spare and separated out like high quality headphones tend to.
Another example: person B might have been to a symphony or opera. They'll have a much happier time with high quality headphones separating out each instrument, appreciating the individuals even as they form the symphony.
Context.
An analogy: the "default", pre-choice-of-audience way to reproduce a painting shouldn't involve a frame and gallery wall, but rather should involve the painting standing alone as a canvas on an easel in a room in the same lighting conditions it was painted in
I think you're nuts! There's multiple frames to view a piece of visual art; from the artist's perspective, they may have designed the piece for a specific location, so you're better off if it's shown that way. It may have been designed to be contextualized (e.g. in a triptych, or as ironic contrast with its original commission). But the passage of time also contextualizes art; art can become meaningful not for its intrinsic artistry or aesthetic, but because of the narrative around the piece, or the artist, or the city / country at the time. A piece of art might be interesting only because e.g. it was once stolen by a very interesting person and got into the news that way; it might not have anything to do with the artifact as a thing-in-itself.
And I hasten to add that that doesn't mean it's bad art. Art is about provoking broad band reaction in the viewer. In order to do that, it needs to trigger the viewer's pattern matching neurobiology relating to different aspects of their lived experience. That's inherently contextual, both on the subject side and on the object side. There's no escaping context.
Sure there is. The market might prefer a baked-in EQ preset. In fact, different subsets of the market may prefer different presets. And that brings it back to the grandparent's point. The customer is always right; even when they're technically wrong, their preferences are what count.
To be fair, I don't use an external DAC or source high quality sound on the road.
But for $10 and tolerable, good enough for travel.
Cheap but surprisingly good end: Superlux HD668B (20-40$, as they got popular you may need to watch out for counterfeits). IMHO they are on par with some popular 200$ - 300$ Beyerdynamic / Sennheiser / AKG models. You may want to follow one of the online guides to replace the ear cup plastic with velour.
Fakespot: A (90%)
Expensive end: AudioQuest Nighthawk, 1st model. Their sound is unique and "purist audiophiles" may not like it, but they work pretty well with my listening habits; the experience has been pure joy so far and they are very comfortable.
Fakespot: A (90%)
Listening habits: Metal (symphonic-, power-, progressive-, i.e. complex and with classical music elements; e.g. Blind Guardian) and some Depeche Mode
I don't even bother with any other earbuds.