CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

  • December 31, 2015, 09:37:11 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10

Author Topic: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?  (Read 11537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

maverickronin

  • Objectively Sound
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +58/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
  • Your friendly neighborhood audio skeptic
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2015, 01:45:55 PM »

I'm a Z7 fan.  These make Z7 sound like unmodded HD800

Too bad.  I was hoping for a more comfortable version of the HD650...
Logged
Heaven's closed - Hell's sold out - So I walk on Earth.

Musical_Element

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +1/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2015, 03:01:52 PM »

I'm going to pop down my local audio store soon to give these a go.
There's been some conflicting impressions but the majority are saying these are on the darker, lusher side. Some have even been saying these are very detailed. That conflicts a bit as detailed headphones are usually on the neutral to bright side.

I think the problem Audioquest may face is that there's already a reliable lush sounding headphone, the HD650; which is half the price and already competes with headphones like the HE-500.

Then when the new pads come out, you already have the X2 at £230 which is less than half the price and does everything right with zero trade offs. It's a tough sale and I can personally see these coming down in price pretty quickly.
Logged
Sennheiser HD650
Philips Fidelio X2
AKG K501
Audio Technica ES700
Shure SRH1540

audiofrk

  • Won't beg for stuff if he hates you
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +30/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 398
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2015, 03:19:13 PM »

I'm going to pop down my local audio store soon to give these a go.
There's been some conflicting impressions but the majority are saying these are on the darker, lusher side. Some have even been saying these are very detailed. That conflicts a bit as detailed headphones are usually on the neutral to bright side.

I think the problem Audioquest may face is that there's already a reliable lush sounding headphone, the HD650; which is half the price and already competes with headphones like the HE-500.

Then when the new pads come out, you already have the X2 at £230 which is less than half the price and does everything right with zero trade offs. It's a tough sale and I can personally see these coming down in price pretty quickly.

Bright doesn't equall detailed.  True that many headphones attempt to give a laib back sound by reducing the drivers response to higher frequencies, high frequencies are not solely responsible for detail.

The hd650 can get you some good detail from the right setup.  The Nighthawk has strong bass but is still has good detail.  The only problem is that the bass overwhelms the rest of the audio range in a distracting manner.

My theory is that this is due to the rubber enclosure around the driver itself.
Logged

Musical_Element

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +1/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2015, 04:02:27 PM »

Bright headphones actually are, in general more detailed. Bright is simply the opposition of dark. It is a headphone geared towards the high frequencies which show more detail. Show me one bright headphone in it's price range that isn't a detail monster..

I wouldn't really call the HD650 dark to be honest. It's warm, lush sounding. Of course if a setup has enough power and the opposit sound signature it will slightly change the sound.

Logged
Sennheiser HD650
Philips Fidelio X2
AKG K501
Audio Technica ES700
Shure SRH1540

audiofrk

  • Won't beg for stuff if he hates you
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +30/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 398
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2015, 04:29:44 PM »

Closed back el-8 bright and pointless
Logged

Musical_Element

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +1/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2015, 04:42:57 PM »

I was thinking more along the lines of open backs but I agree, the headphone sucks.
Logged
Sennheiser HD650
Philips Fidelio X2
AKG K501
Audio Technica ES700
Shure SRH1540

audiofrk

  • Won't beg for stuff if he hates you
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +30/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 398
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2015, 04:43:56 PM »

Just to clarify what would you define as dark?

Logged

Musical_Element

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +1/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2015, 05:06:43 PM »

Dark implies a headphone where the treble is the weakest aspect of the sound i.e LCD-2 pre fazor. So basically linear bass to mids with a rolled off treble as an example.

These types of headphones are never the top pick for anyone looking for detail. The Q701 is a good example of a detailed headphone, it's fairly linear with a bright sound. If it was linear and had a neutral sound or a dark sound, it wouldn't have the detail that it has. The trade off though, it's not going to sound natural or smooth although, some like that sound.

I'm not saying a warm or darker headphone can't have good detail at all. The LCD-2 and HD650 have a super focus in the mids due to it's lack of treble focus. What I meant is brighter headphones will always almost be able to sound more detailed of course, there's exceptions like the DT990 that has a huge mid-bass hump which can affect how immediate we see the detail so it also depends on other factors.

As a headphone gamer, this has been very important in my previous headphone journey so obviously I've had to gain this information by tests.

Very Best
Logged
Sennheiser HD650
Philips Fidelio X2
AKG K501
Audio Technica ES700
Shure SRH1540

Schopenhauer

  • Big Boobs Big Grin
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +20/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
  • Schopenmeower
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2015, 05:25:42 PM »

The LCD-2.2 (pre-fazor) has been my reference for awhile now. FWIW, from my listenings, I've thought that the resolution of detail on the LCD-2.2 equals or exceeds every other headphone I've heard save the HD800. This holds for the resolution of treble detail in particular. Maybe I have an top-notch token LCD-2.2; maybe I'm massively deceived. But the LCD-2.2 isn't a bright headphone.
Logged

audiofrk

  • Won't beg for stuff if he hates you
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +30/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 398
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2015, 05:26:32 PM »

 @musical_element
Oh ok. When I say something is dark I usually mean bass that ovepowers the mids and highs regardless of their accuracy.  For warm I usually think of bloom in the bass that doesn't over power the rest of the audible band.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10