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

I find the HD600 and 650 able to provide more detail than something like a Q701. The problem I find with the likes of a Q701 is that some aspects of the treble come forth at the expense of other aspects of the same treble. The 650 may not bring certain things to focus like the Q701, but it does not throw away some others like the AKG does. The Q701 also sound a little more synthetic to me.

IMO the DT990 does not present a huge mid-bass hump. It brings forth a huge and painful treble which I could not stand. I would pick a Q701 over a DT990 any day for this reason. Fixable or not, a stock DT990 is a mistake.

So the NightHawk is a bit bass heavy but nice and smooth every were else? Any issues with edginess?

The DT990 has one of, if not the biggest mid-bass humps out of any headphone.  I know what you mean though, it's treble spike is so overpowering and that gives it that cold, shrill sound..just ewww.

The Q701 is certainly more detailed but the HD650/600 are an easy listen and they certainly sound more natural. I don't doubt the Q701 is more synthetic so to speak but it's detail whoring nature is a standout. I use them for gaming mostly as they are great are positional ques, almost on par with the AD700X.

I'm going to listen to the hawks tomorrow so I'll give impressions asap.

The DT990 has one of, if not the biggest mid-bass humps out of any headphone.  I know what you mean though, it's treble spike is so overpowering and that gives it that cold, shrill sound..just ewww.

The Q701 is certainly more detailed but the HD650/600 are an easy listen and they certainly sound more natural. I don't doubt the Q701 is more synthetic so to speak but it's detail whoring nature is a standout. I use them for gaming mostly as they are great are positional ques, almost on par with the AD700X.

I'm going to listen to the hawks tomorrow so I'll give impressions asap.

BTW, be aware that you don't have to agree with me in what I say or think at all. You don't have to like HD6x0 to fit here AFAIK. It is true however, that many folks around here think highly of the HD6x0, HD800, KSC-75s and other stuff. Someothers are declared Stax whores and that alright too.

What I feel I can say based from your comments is that if you think the HD6x0 are sort of dark in signature, perhaps you might want to consider HD800s which maybe better at retreiving detail (vs the Q701) w/o some of what many consider shortcommings in the Q701. The Q701 is however much more affordable @ $200 a pop and is not a bad headphone IMO, unlike the DT-990 which you can probably guess I dislike a fair bit. I can see it being a great choice for gaming as well.

The nighthawk seems a bit pricier, but it does look intersting. Just found out it also uses a 3-D printed cup:

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_703NHTHAWK/AudioQuest-NightHawk.html?tp=60828&awkw=135832351945&awat=pla&awnw=g&awcr=72581587105&awdv=c

I think the HD650 are warm but they can sing at top so I wouldn't call them dark.

I don't like bright headphones for music, I prefer slightly warmer than neutral. I've owned the HD800 and it's too lean and dry for my taste. For gaming the only thing I noticed over the AKG's was that it had a bit better depth and more sub bass but other than that; soundstage width was maybe slightly in the Q's favour but both close. I couldn't really justify the price for a gaming headphone so sold it. I would of kept the Audeze LCD-2 but it was again, hard to justify the price.

I agree with some of your points. I think before the X2 came out, the HD600 series was the best value.

No one said you can't have a detailed warm headphone. The point was a brighter headphone without a warm hump is generally better are more immediate detail than say a warm/lush headphone. My HE-500 was kind of slightly warm with an extension up top yet it wasn't as obviously detailed as say a Q701.

I also didn't like the K812. That headphone flopped hard IMO.