I am sure I know of some audiophoolery, myself: last night my friend visited, and proceeded to become incredibly pleased with himself for planning to spend £140 on... headphones. I asked if they were worth £140, and what was it about them that made them so expensive - the answer? "Oh you can TELL the difference, mate", but he didn't have any explanation to what this "difference" was. Probably been sucked in by marketing psychology in the same way my other friend who is convinced that a £70 HDMI lead is "better" than a £5-10 one... again, they are noit electronics engineers, but that aside - they don't EVER seem to hit the hammer on the nail of what EXACTLY it is that makes these overly-inflated products "better".
Give me a break! 
"I can just HEAR that gold plating - and the lack of oxygen in the copper makes the sound seem to flow smoother" or some such piffle... hahaha! So much madness!
Placebo gotcha - you got had.
Assuming your friend had the good sense to actually listen to the headphones before deciding how good they were...
... that is not a lot of money for quality headphones. Nowhere near audiophool kind of money, that's still very much in the realm of you get what you pay for. Since I first opened a studio in 2002 I've owned and tried more cans than you can poke a stick at, and while I've found reasonable sounding cheapies for drummers to trash under $100, for my own listening enjoyment or for a reference when I need to work mobile or I want a break from the speakers, the cheapest things I've found that I would touch cost a few hundred bucks. At this price point it's not about "air" or "openness" haha, it's about "sounds pretty accurate" rather than "what the fuck is wrong with these lying bastard cans?" 
Each person's ears are different - there can be no "definitive" standard, only a rough, average one. Anyway, I'm not getting sucked into this whole world of audio pifflery... I am happy with my £2o Sony phones, bashed, battered, cracked... resoldered endless times... but they make me happy :-)
The "happy" part is definitely key here, it's about the enjoyment of the music rather than the spec of the gear. It just seemed like you were coming from the opposite extreme to the audiophiles there though which to me is just as odd.
Ears may be different, but reproduction quality is a fairly well agreed on thing and quite easy to standardise. Those of us who listen for a living (audio engineers, musicians) might disagree on questions of taste with sound, but quality of reproduction is very easy to define. And to a certain (rational) point, you really do get what you pay for. I'll happily go for a walk with my iPod and the standard ear buds, or other cheap sets I have. But I'd be outright lying if I said they even sounded half as good as the expensive cans I have, and for critical listening in my job there's only one set I own that I'd use. It's not the dollar figure, it's the component/build quality, and unfortunately that stuff costs money.
Bottom line- there's cheap, then there's good, then there's hype. A few hundred bucks for headphones is reasonable for durable build and great sounding drivers (provided you can hear the difference). A thousand dollars + for some cans with shells made from dinosaur bones, leopard skin lining and cryogenically treated cables... different story. Same deal with speakers- my work speakers are worth as much as my car, and one of the best purchases I've ever made. But the kettle cords that power them probably literally came from kettles haha, and there's no magic rocks or mahogany power boards around them for audiophile voodoo
