Dusty Chalk

I voted, just so that I could complain.

I think you missed my edit.

Okay, substitute Tom Waits in there, and try again.

Unless of course, one is not playing that kind of music. I mean, do you really think Les Claypool would be improved with perfect pitch, or would he be so busy obsessing with pitch, that he'd forget to be creative. (And I pick Les Claypool arbitrarily, but I think you see my point.)

Solid state has its own characteristic distortion, too.

Now I have that stuck in my head. (wanders off to find an mp3 of that)... They need an Andy Samberg's Greatest Hits CD.

Yeah, it's going to have a hard time capturing anything that is actually a function of the signal (function being in the strict mathematical sense of the word, one which takes as at least one of its inputs amplitude vs. time or whatever). It can only capture those elements that can be reversibly imposed on a signal. That'll include compression as well, which is just a mild form of distortion. Just try to keep your distortions to a minimum, and factor that out of the equation as much as possible. I'd be curious enough to hear what kind of success you could get just getting the headphones right.

Shaped like Tricia Helfer's thighs? No, wait, that's a Cylon...

That's more of a "throw" statement.

Thank you. That's what I was referencing when I said I had good relative pitch.

Can we add the viking smilie? And call it Stephen?

What you listened to in your formative years has a great influence on what you like later in life. I've always "exercised" my musical tastes, so mine should be flexible. Also, unless you have good stores near you, you need to stop shopping in stores. They only carry the most generic "likeable by the most people" type music, which is useless in today's world of growing population and diverging tastes. Try: emusic, iTunes, cdbaby, amazon, pandora, and so on, to discover what kind of music you really like.

So the problem is over-analysis, not perfect pitch. I do not have perfect pitch, but I have pretty good relative pitch.

I don't know about him, but I dislike blanket statements in general.

Awesome. Around the world, 7,000 people cheer.

So you'll use Room EQ Wizard just to obtain the impulses? And you need more than EQ measurements to get the R10, you need the impulse. It's not just EQ, or else we're back to...oh, who was that guy on head-fi...not gloco, but it was around the time when people like me and MacDEF and kelly and gloco and jude and kwkarth were the most active people on head-fi... I have my doubts that it will work, but it's definitely an interesting experiment, and I definitely encourage you to do it, if only because I'd be curious to hear the results. I really think you need to start with a full-frequency headphone like the Sony MDR-7506/-V6, though. If you tried to impose bass on a bassless headphone (like "those" R10s or the K1000), you'll just get distortion. This was why I specifically asked about Matlab, Jacob. I knew it had wav interoperability, don't know if Mathematica or Octave do. ...and then foobar has an convolver plugin? So what does it take, just a wav file (or equivalent)? That's pretty cool...there's probably a HRTF impulse out on the web somewhere, you should try downloading it and plugging it in...instant crossfeed.

I think that was the point.

You're changing the subject -- weren't we talking primarily about sound? I mean, I agree, build quality should be an issue (especially at those prices, just like sound and looks), but my main argument is sound, as the original study seemed to point out that many people agree that they make great sound. So I've got >50% of a study that says you're wrong, at least about that. Also, you said yourself that your experiences are in the past, not in the recent, and yet one of your issues seems to be that they were bought out. Was any of your experience post buy-out? So why would that be an issue, I would think that you would think that that would be an improvement? Still sounds like you have a bone to pick, and if I sound like I have a bone to pick, it's because I despise people who spout off nonsense. Much of the time you have useful information to contribute, but every once in a while, you forget yourself and just get diarrhea of the brain. That's the only reason I spoke up -- I was just "calling you on it".

I can't believe you put these two sentences so close together. Just because you say the first sentence, doesn't make it true in any way either. Are you that in love with your own opinion that you think of it as fact? Jesus. I was synopsizing the article, they didn't just claim to care about sound, they discussed it in great detail. You obviously didn't read the article, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting off this uninformed nonsense.

Ah, I didn't even think of that.

Women have been known to orgasm from that pedal-pedal machine.

Believe it or not, early Kraftwerk. It'll be less experimental than Can or Amon D

...and not a single pun about shaving one's pussy.

So how were you planning on doing this -- get the characteristics of your headphones, get the characteristics of the target headphones, take the inverse of your headphones, and then impose the target headphone "image" on the inverse of the extant headphone image? What software were you going to use to do that? I don't think Sony's Sound Forge Acoustic Mirror does all that. Matlab?

No, I didn't! Who'd want to divorce you? Who'd let you divorce them? And on a less ingratiating note...my condolences? Congratulations? Divorces suck, even if it's in the best interest of both parties and they both realize it, so I'm leaning to the former. PS I don't think "ingratiation" means what you think it means -- I think there's another word for that. PPS I'm kidding about the Portable Micro -- I'll buy one, eventually.