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.

Hands

  • Pizza the Hutt
  • Mate
  • Pirate
  • ****
  • Brownie Points: +331/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1591
  • Master of Revelatory Bird Calls and Fine Art
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2015, 09:56:53 PM »

Usually brighter sounds more like false detail to me, especially when you get a bumpy or ragged upper-end response (ala K812 or K701/2 family to a much lesser extent). But, hey, I ain't got a problem if you hear things differently. There are smooth and not-at-all detailed headphones too.
Logged
The other master and I invite you to visit our digital museum of fine art and revelatory bird calls: https://www.facebook.com/SchrodsonkMuseum

Schopenhauer

  • Big Boobs Big Grin
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +20/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
  • Schopenmeower
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2015, 10:16:27 PM »

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.
In your first post you stated "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." The putative conflict, I take it, is between darkness and detail. If neutrality or brightness "usually" correlate with detail retrieval, and darkness apparently precludes detail retrieval, then it would be natural to understand you as having initially claimed that you can't have a detailed dark headphone. I think people - myself included - are pointing out counterexamples to that claim. As well as pointing out that brightness or neutrality doesn't suffice for detail retrieval.
Logged

Musical_Element

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +1/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2015, 10:25:19 PM »

I completely agree that it is false detail. That's why I never listen to them for music. I actually think the HD600 and X2 are among the most natural sounding headphones I've heard.

To the other guy, I stated that people mentioned these were lush and dark. Lush is a very thick, bloomey sound that will never be associated with detail.
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 #53 on: July 09, 2015, 10:49:59 PM »

When I think "lush", I think thick, full-bodied sound. There's no reason a headphone that's considered lush can't also be considered detailed, unless we're going to fix our terms so that "lush" excludes detail. But that strikes me as a bit ad hoc. It would seem that, going by ordinary usage, what lushness excludes is (perhaps, excessive) separation. You can have a signature lacking in separation but not lacking in detail. It might be the case that it is more difficult to appreciate individual details when they're close together, but that doesn't entail that they aren't there. But claiming that lushness "will never be associated with detail" strains belief.
Logged

Musical_Element

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +1/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2015, 11:09:13 PM »

Since I started my journey lush has always been a thick slow sound. Quicker headphones go hand in hand with more dryer and leaner sounding headphones which is the opposit of Lusher and slower. It's kind of like saying I want a HD650 midrange and upfrobt vocals with a Q701 soundstage.. Not going to happen. It's also like saying I want a headphone to be as competitive as the AD700 in gaming but with a nice full sound..again not gonna happen. What do you think makes a lush sound? It's a rolled off treble with a mid bass hump. That's what makes a full sound. That type of sound isn't going to be a detailed headphone..yes of course it can show up detail and when you adapt to that sound you will pick up detail but moving to let's say a AD900x detail will sound more obvious and so will micro detail because it's dry and doesn't have that rolled off, mid bass bloom.
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 #55 on: July 09, 2015, 11:20:12 PM »

Say, thanks for explaining that to me.
Logged

Griffon

  • Foppish Cat
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +17/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
  • Meow!
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2015, 12:27:19 AM »

I'll try to go to the local hifi shop this weekend to give the NH another shot. Double checking ain't gonna be bad.
Logged
Meow!

graean

  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Powder Monkey
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +32/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2015, 01:34:30 AM »

Lush is unconditionally full fundamentals with every frequency after tilted down or equal. Midbass hump optional--lcd 3/2 vs HD650.

Zero tilt gives you varying degrees of neutrality, depending where it rolls off. Any bump or rise is false, distracting, ear-hurting detail. Including bass bumps. A recession somewhere in the middle of the FR ( he 560) or a bump anywhere from high mids up (HD800) will lend to an analytical or cold sound.

Veiled/congested/warm is when the tilt is too fast. M80. Sometimes HD650.

As you extend from the mids, and have reasonably low distortion, the soundstage opens up. I can hear bass decay and its soundstage, since the fundamentals are well presented. From treble I can hear breathing in voices and distance from the microphone. Not ouch siblance. Siblance like the difference between a normal voice and whispering and sighing. Pleasurable. Dynamics and timbral density increase as well, as you can now hear more of the FR given flat areas now have the same dB range to use.

Lush is the starting point for listenability because its the most common, basic source of audio emotion: Voices.

Flat from end to end with roll off one or two dB (edit: via physical damping, no eq) is where magic happens. First octave of thunderous, non vomiting bass. Last octave of tactile treble. Not to say nothing of attack, distortion, and decay. But on the way to end to end neutrality, those things are partly solved.


« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 06:39:40 PM by graean »
Logged

Musical_Element

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +1/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2015, 07:09:26 AM »

I'll try to go to the local hifi shop this weekend to give the NH another shot. Double checking ain't gonna be bad.

What was your first  issue with them?
Logged
Sennheiser HD650
Philips Fidelio X2
AKG K501
Audio Technica ES700
Shure SRH1540

Griffon

  • Foppish Cat
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +17/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
  • Meow!
Re: AudioQuest NightHawk impressions?
« Reply #59 on: July 10, 2015, 07:42:18 AM »

What was your first  issue with them?


Nothing of it was outstanding to me. At 700 CAD I'm expecting some redeemable quality. Otherwise it's another great $200 headphone. Sounding OK + luxury materials&designs&big brand name ain't gonna justify such a premium price. I'm not interested in paying $700 for sub-HD650-level drivers enclosed in carefully-selected wood housing with titanium headband wrapped in a CNC-machined aluminm case. This is just painfully stupid.

As HD650 can be had at around 350 CAD used/500 all new (DT880 for 100 less), the NH must have something outclassing HD650 by a considerable margin to claim its price point. Say TH900 bass. Say the euphonics of low-end STAX. Beyond the price point of  HD650, in terms of full-size cans, by far I've yet to be impressed aside from TH900, HD800 and STAX 2170.
Logged
Meow!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10