To be a  jerk about the whole chameleon thing, I find us humans to be more chameleon-like than any of our gear.  Chameleons change color based on mood, light, temperature - I find my tastes and whims do as well.

I think the metaphor works well for both people and certain gear.

Some headphones sound largely the same no matter what you feed them, whereas others change a lot more depending on their "environment." How I feel also depends in part on my environment, and how I feel determines the sort of gear I seek.

Then again, the other day someone was telling me they felt the HD800 sounded best on a Leben with bass boost. That exceeds my range of chameleonic adaptation.

Some people are 'prawn' people. They don't like their music served as 'plankton', they like bigger chunks as in 120kbs MP3.

Maybe Plankton = good headphones and a nice source.
Prawns = 120kbs MP3 on an Ipod with dock connection to an amp and a DAB radio.
Cuttlefish = podcasts on a Sansa without an amp.
Crabs = 78RPM on a 6 inch nail and soundboard.

All perfectly good for pirates and hi fi. 

I loved the reference to Plankton in a thread about nonsensical terms.

Is there something fishy about this thread. 

Solderdude, it seems you have a hard time comprehending something unless you can see numbers or graphs.  What I'm talking about is a concept and a pretty important one despite the silly animal metaphor.  Maybe I'll draw you some pictures at some point.

Indeed I did not understand how a headphone could be different at times but I assumed it was meant as it sounding different on the same gear somehow.
The better headphones can sound bassless or sibilant on the same setup and warm/lush as well depending on the recording and thought that was meant by the term (not being HF'er).
Omegakitty's description clarified the point to me so I understand.

My viewpoint really has little to do with numbers or graphs being important to me, IMO more with the fact that I "believe" audio = electronics.
Been in audio (electronics, and electromechanics side) for over 30 years which may explain why I feel knowledge analog electronics knowledge (not hobbyist level) could be of relevance including the numbers and graphs that come with it, which I think has a clear relation to what I think I hear (perceive might be more accurate term).
P.S.... I am not one of Voldemorts minions but my findings have great resemblances with what he used to preach, though not everything nor in the same condescending way.
I also fully understand there is a difference in hearing ability (which I believe most can be learned/trained).
I also fully understand the border between 'religion' and 'science' is a variable one and not set in stone meaning for some it is clear where that border is and that border may be slightly shifted to either 'side' depending on how one listens/tests e.t.c. while still being certain their perception of that border feels 'rigid' and non-negotiable.
This too is relevant to what one sees as sensical or nonsensical audioterms or descriptions of others.

Not coming from a producer or musician but from a technical corner does put me in a corner and would really (not lying here or sucking up) someone painting me pictures of how they see it.
Omegakitty's picture was immensely clear and really appreciate those kind of descriptions.
Some may have perceived that remark as 'cynical' but it was intended as 'true'.

I hope I painted my picture in the right colors