This is the same sort of bullshit thinking that led the Ultrasone "scientist" to add random treble peaks to his headphones. Going against DF or FF is fine, but claiming to have some sort of revolutionary realization hitherto undiscovered by any audiologist or engineer requires either research or an actually good sounding headphone to back up the claim. Then again, this is fucking AudioQuest, king of the cable bullshit companies we're talking about.

edit: OK, after having read through all of the whitepaper, they make a few assumptions about HRTF and target response which go against both listener preference studies as well as measurement surveys which correct for the various factors they've discussed. Instead the designer appears to have followed their own conclusions based on a few questionable measurement corrections without the necessary listening tests or third party verification of the measurement effects. Simply put, the frequency response tuning is wrong even if the headphone is otherwise sound.

What specifically about the Nighthawk's target curve doesn't make sense? At least on the surface it's following a logical pathway. I'd like to see Ultrasone provide a similar writeup to explain their S-Logic.

They do not adequately test their hypothesis (target curve) by testing it either against prior measurement surveys or by running their own listening preference panels. Their assumptions appear to be logical, but that isn't enough to make something either practical or true in the real world. Without controlled testing they've come up with nothing more than a hypothesis (and one with which my ears disagree, for all of the anecdotal small sample size evidence that's worth).

Ultrasone's Dr. Germansoundingname did publish a few papers, though the last time I tried to find them at their website it appeared that some were taken down. But at least he went through the trouble of measuring real people rather than arguing against strawman dummy heads.

I fail to see how bringing up the fact that Audioquest sells expensive cables as relevant to the discussion. It's just a distraction that leads to the objectivist ad hominem dismissal of what might be valid method of tuning headphones.

Might be but isn't. To be clear, I am not going to dismiss the Nighthawk's designer because of his company affiliation, but the fact that his company is based on selling bullshit is going to make me a hell of a lot more skeptical of the product's scientific claims. That is to say that if one were to find a paper on chemistry in a homeopathy journal, a cynical approach is warranted regardless of the implied ad hominem.

They do not adequately test their hypothesis (target curve) by testing it either against prior measurement surveys or by running their own listening preference panels. Their assumptions appear to be logical, but that isn't enough to make something either practical or true in the real world. Without controlled testing they've come up with nothing more than a hypothesis (and one with which my ears disagree, for all of the anecdotal small sample size evidence that's worth).

Listener preference panels give you Olive-Welti curves which sounds like absolute shit for headphones. I'll go back to the point that Marv is harping on...good ears beats the opinions of the plebs every time.

Yes, it all is just a hypothesis but what specific aspects of the hypothesis do you find to be fallacious? Which parts wouldn't stand up under further investigation? Genuinely curious as that's what this thread should be looking at.

Sounds too warm last time I heard it. High bass bleeding into mids.

Yes I agree. Too much upper bass last time I heard it, but now I'm wondering if the biocellulous driver needed more burn in time or whatever.

Listener preference panels give you Olive-Welti curves which sounds like absolute shit for headphones.

Really!? Care to elaborate?