Dusty Chalk

25 is "like" 20 of them. Why don't you just buy 25 of them? I still have my BASF ceramics for mastering.

L3000 with aplomb, I might add. They're not that different -- both are "busy" musics.

Oh. Yeah.

And they say sarcasm doesn't convey in print.

So...this isn't semantics? Oh, and I think it's supposed to be added together, not multiplied. I mean, 4 exclamation points doesn't mean 4 times as loud, does it? It just means three "units" louder than one exclamation point. I would even go so far as to say it's asymptotic -- I mean, do you really care if it's a thousand >'s, or a thousand and one? Beyond a certain point, one just starts ignoring those things.

Oh yeah, that'll be very convincing. It'll even be right two times a day.

That was the way I understood it as well. The counter-argument regarding audio-technica headphones is therefore, "so audio-technica designs are not old?", not that they should be revolutionary. BTW: I, too, am "taking the piss", as it were. Although I probably shouldn't use that particular expression around here.

Half of us are banned from that site -- screenshots, synopsis -- something.

And that's pretty much all I need. I think I need a custom watch. I'm going to get two -- one that is as black as possible, and another one that is black where the first one isn't (I.E. hands, pips, etc.), and then have a watch maker or watch repairer swap the parts. And then sell the other one on eBay as a custom "all-white" jobby.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this. To me, euphony means colored, which is mutually exclusive with neutrality. Now, if you meant that neutrality and pleasantness or sweetness (which is the technical definition of euphony) are not mutually exclusive, I have to admit that I'd not be able to argue with you. But when we talk about euphonic colorations introduced by our gear (and I completely agree with the precept that all gear colors the sound somewhat), that's what I usually interpret us to be talking about when we talk about euphony. Oh, and WRT "dry" -- I come from the studio world, where "wet" means lots of reverb, and "dry" means no reverb, so when I say that particular equipment is "dry", it usually means I hear very little smearing of the signal. Not at all the way most people understand me, unfortunately.

I disagree (and I'm not talking about head-fi here) -- there tends to be two schools of thought -- accuracy vs. euphony. If all people wanted was accuracy, why would there constantly be a small portion of the population that would disrecommend buying "accurate" studio monitors for home use rather than home speakers? One of the problems is, no-one can agree on what constitutes the "absolute sound" when it comes to euphony, because there are many approaches to this, and for example with speakers, there are many "house sounds". For example, what is "dry"? Shouldn't that mean accurate? And yet, usually people hate "dry" delivery. One of the things I like so much about my Singlepower amp is that it's so clean and dry in its delivery, but every once in a while, I crave that tube-y-ness (the Wheatfield, for example, is one of the nicest amps I've heard that I would describe as "tubey").

What, this: ...? I still don't see how that is apropos. If you were addressing the "50 year old" aspect, "revolutionary" is hardly a requirement. "Not ancient" is sufficient.

If you read back a few posts, I've mentioned that I've heard the SA5000. They're not total crap -- I completely disagree with this assessment. And "most would say" -- that would be head-fi? Where "most would say" stuff about stuff they've never heard? That doesn't count. They're just regurgitating others' opinions.

You make those sound like bad things. Bud how did they sound? That's all that should matter with headphones.

Well, the cRaptor would explain it. I'm not familiar with the sound signature of the HA5K, and I don't even know what the BCL is. I mean, I'm sure I'll go, "ooooooohhhhhh!!!!!1!" once you tell me, but right now I'm not coming up with it.

Why does it have to be revolutionary? Why can't it just be a well-engineered headphone?

Wait, what?!?!? I mean, yeah, I saw your reasoning, but I just don't hear it as congested. What amp are you using again?

$25,000 Do you realize, even if I sold my car, my speakers, my amps, and any other large items I could think of, I still wouldn't be able to afford it?

I don't know if it'd be worth saving a nickel, when it probably will just go back into reshipping.

You're exaggerating. I've heard the SA5000 (specifically, Juan's pair, don't know if it was recabled at that point or not), and it's certainly not that bad.

Either that, or (a) he's confusing "Santa Claus" with the movie, "The Santa Clause", or ( he's utilizing the old spelling, Santa Klaus, which would mean that he's still misspelling it, or © it's against his religion to spell it correctly.

I think you're reading "bot" a little too literally -- there's the physical robots with which we are familiar from the movies, and then there's the world wide web "bots" that are just programs that do stuff repeatedly. He's of the latter variety. Unless someone builds him a Mindstorms kit.

Spamster!

No, he's just illiterate.

yo mama's pretty fast