Those are the main shows and if that's the case, it's likely not a very good headphone and we should probably abandon our Audioquest quest..

Curious what Skylar has to say about the mixed reaction.

This is where I'm confused with peoples expectations on head-fi.  It's a cable company with no headphones or earbuds so why was this headphone supposed to be the next Audeze LCD2?  

No matter the experience R&D is key to introducing a competitive product when expecting it to win over buyers looking at its price bracket. No stand out qualities wont help it stand out. It's not our expectations that are the problem, it's theirs. They needn't expect to be competitive if they can't punch above their price. No one buys a product out of pity because they just started.
However with good feedback they can make an outstanding choice... That's the development part.

Surely AudioQuest knows what good sound is.....right?
 
This is what I find so odd about bringing a new item to a show to "test the waters". If you really have confidence in your ears and your design, you should be bringing the final production model with you.

@SkylarGray I know that the Nighthawk is maybe still under development, but could you comment on the semi-open nature of your design please?
I watched a video on Youtube where you commented that it diffuses a little outside noise, but I am curious about the sound leakage levels.
I do not need a sealed headphone but I need to be able to listen to headphones without disturbing my wife while she is asleep in the next room.
 
Cheers.

Thanks very much for asking my perspective. Now hang on for a longer answer essay than you were expecting…
 
Given that every person's hearing acuity, personal hearing loss, and subjective tastes vary, every audio product will technically have mixed reviews. The question is: "What is the mix of positive/negative/neutral feedback?" I am delighted that feedback from NightHawk listeners at events like the most recent CanJam in SoCal and other shows across the globe (USA, Canada, UK, EU, South Asia, Japan, etc.) has been overwhelmingly positive.
 
I have to estimate that NightHawk has now been heard by over two thousand pairs of ears, and whenever a listener is kind enough to share their thoughts (either directly or by proxy), I write it down. So when I look back at my list of critiques, I see only a small percentage of criticism. And this criticism is really all over the map…too much highs, not enough highs, too much mids, not enough mids, too much bass, not enough bass, and on and on. There's really no common ground or consensus among this small percentage of criticism. However, there is a great deal of consensus in the positive reactions, which make up roughly 95% or more of the total feedback so far. I most frequently hear that NightHawk sounds like it should cost 4-figures, is one of the most comfortable headphones out there, and gives an experience much more like loudspeakers than headphones. These three sentiments come up over and over.
 
We can't please everyone. Which brings me to an interesting topic: consensus. During the first CanJam SoCal panel discussion on headphone measurement with Tyll, Jacob from G.R.A.S., and myself, the final audience question concerned consensus of listener impressions from a show environment like CES or CanJam. I struggled to answer the question initially, but Jacob had a wonderful response, similar to my first sentence of this post (after the preface). Tyll shared a great analogy that concluded with the idea that even individuals have difficulty attaining consensus between their own impressions over multiple listening sessions when demoing in short windows with unfamiliar gear/environments and medium/high ambient noise. My answer eventually settled around weighing feedback; for instance, I have to provide a different weight to feedback received at a show vs feedback received by listeners who are able to spend more time in a known, quiet environment. Similarly, I have to provide different weight to feedback based upon the listener's breadth of headphone experience.
 
NightHawk ($599 US) is a different approach from most 4-figure headphones. I have put a serious focus on reducing distortion and creating a balanced presentation that will not cause fatigue even over lengthy listening sessions (and this has as much to do with sonic performance as ergonomic design). When A/B'ing NightHawk against typical flagship headphones, some listeners may feel like something is missing. And they would be correct…distortion is what’s missing along with transient edge enhancement and excessive high-frequency emphasis. Leading edge/transient accentuation can indeed be exciting and enjoyable, but usually only briefly before aural exhaustion sets in. Headphones that do this can have a certain "curb appeal" by imparting a sense of false detail arising from heightened treble response accompanied by distortion peaks. NightHawk simply does not play this trick and instead uses a truly pistonic driver that solves the problem of high-frequency diaphragm breakup distortion that most headphones suffer from. In fact, NightHawk has lower measured distortion than any headphone I have measured. This, of course, is no accident.
  
I know this is a strong claim, but I can back it up. Allow me to provide an example after first discussing a little background on the topic of distortion and measurement.
 
There are many methods to measure nonlinear audio distortion by observing harmonics (THD), intermodulation (IMD), dynamics, phase, non-coherence between a test signal and measured response, etc. A recent AES paper by Steve Temme, Sean Olive, et. al. evaluated the correlation between most of the aforementioned methods and actual audibility in headphones. They found that measured non-coherent distortion is most correlated to audibility, THD is next, and IMD/multitone methods have virtually no correlation. Dynamic and phase distortion were not evaluated. After reading this paper, I have begun crafting some methodologies and custom-code for testing non-coherent distortion since it's not a built-in capability of most measurement hardware/software. But at least we have a bit more supporting evidence that THD is a useful metric.
 
By the way, Tyll has a great article detailing how typical THD measurements are made. However, at AQ we use what I think is a more accurate method, a combination of reverse stweeps and HarmonicTrak. We normally see THD measured at some SPL (90dBSPL or 100dBSPL). While this is useful, it does not tell the whole story. THD measured at a fixed SPL won't tell us what happens at a variety of volume levels. Music—with its quiet sounds, loud sounds, and everything in-between—is so much more complex than swept tones at a fixed output level. I find that observing THD at many volumes helps build a better picture of how linear a headphone really is…how much detail is preserved and how consistent a headphone's tonal character is during dynamic musical passages.
 
Let's look at NightHawk versus a highly popular flagship headphone that retails at more than double our price. Here are THD vs frequency graphs at 85, 90, 95, 100, and 105 dBSPL output (calibrated by averaging SPL from 160Hz–8kHz). We see a changing relationship between the low and mid distortion profile of the flagship headphone as output is increased/decreased. I interpret this as a constantly changing coloration depending upon overall output and varying dynamics within a piece of music. This is exactly the type of non-linear behavior that we at AudioQuest try to avoid. NightHawk not only has much lower distortion overall, but also exhibits very linear behavior as output is increased/decreased. This means that the character of NightHawk's sound reproduction remains unchanged regardless of listening level and variations of complex dynamics within music. Just how audible is this? I leave that up to listeners to determine for themselves.



We can also learn a fair amount from the high-frequency region of a THD plot. Sudden, high-amplitude peaks above 1kHz can indicate resonances within the driver structure caused by undamped volumes and can also indicate diaphragm break-up. In the flagship THD graph, we see both. The large peak that increases with increasing SPL output and centered at about 3.6kHz is likely caused by a resonating air volume within the driver that has not been damped. The secondary distortion peak at just under 10kHz is a common characteristic of Mylar diaphragm break-up. I did not design this driver, so these are my speculations based upon experience. Regardless of the cause, the distortion spikes in question contribute to a type of high-frequency emphasis that can initially give the impression of detail, but in fact is distortion which becomes very quickly fatiguing.
 
NightHawk does not exhibit these high-frequency distortion problems, as I have carefully damped the cavity resonances within the driver and implemented a rigid yet self-damping biocellulose diaphragm that does not break up until well beyond what ITU-T standard measurement gear is capable of measuring. [Aside: we use a G.R.A.S. Kemar and 43AG inside a custom-made isolation chamber built to laboratory specs for scanning electron microscopes.]

There is a precision to NightHawk’s high-frequency reproduction that results in accurate detail retrieval without listener fatique caused by increased distortion and over-hyped highs.
 
 
To further understand low-frequency accuracy/resolution, I use a linearity function to compare an excitation signal with the actual measured output from a headphone (calibrated to 75–105dBSPL) while slowly increasing volume at several frequencies. The ideal results are completely straight diagonal lines for each frequency, perfectly overlapping. Erratic lines, such as in the flagship headphone graph shown below, mean this particular headphone cannot accurately control how loud or soft bass should be reproduced. Spreading of individual lines means that varying bass frequencies are not reproduced evenly. In the case of the flagship headphone, this means greatly rolled-off lows. Conversely, NightHawk has a much tighter line pattern and minimal wobbling, resulting in tight, even and precise low-mid definition.


These measurements and charts give us a window into understanding performance, but please understand that I do not claim them to be definitive. These are simply measurements that have proven to be highly useful to me as I develop headphones. 
 
Fortunately, each of us is equipped with measurement gear already calibrated to our individual perception…our ears. I believe NightHawk represents a new level of fidelity that hopefully inspires reflection upon the price-to-performance ratio of today's high-end headphones.
 
I will be supervising the final pre-production cycle of NightHawk starting next week with mass-production looking like late-May (no promises, though!). I look forward to continued discussion here, but please forgive me if my replies are delayed over the next two months. Thanks for reading, listening, and being all-around cool cats.

Erm, thanks for the information, but just because one particular high-end headphone is horribly overpriced and badly built, does not really make your product look a great deal more appealing. You could just post measurements ala Innerfidelity of your headphones, and let us judge for ourselves.

After reading Skylar's excellent post, I will definitely have to carefully listen to the NightHawks once again, even though they failed to impress me at the SoCal CanJam.
 
Sometimes hearing a transducer with a significantly lower amount of distortion than one is typically used to hearing takes some time to aurally adjust to.
 
This recently happened to (the very experienced) Robert Hartley upon first hearing the Magico Q7 MkII, which now uses a new graphene/carbon nanotube composite midrange driver (which is the first-ever use of graphene in any commercially available product) and a new diamond-coated beryllium tweeter (also a first).
 
 
   "I was initially startled by what sounded like a very different tonal balance from the Mk.II compared than that of the original (with which I'm very familiar).  This new speaker was decidedly darker in balance, richer in tone color, smoother and softer in the treble, and less incisive.  It sounded very much like a difference in frequency response, with the top two-and-a-half octaves shelved down in level compared with the original Q7.  However, Magico's Alon Wolf told me that the frequency responses of the two loudspeakers are identical.  The difference is that the new tweeter reduces artifacts that introduce hardness, glare, and the brittle character often heard from dome tweeters.  It took a bit of getting used to; the metallic hardness in reproduced music is so pervasive that many of us have become inured to it.  But once I became accustomed to the sound (in just a matter of minutes), I thought that the Mk.II was revelatory in its combination of ease and resolution."
 
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/first-listen-magico-q7-mkii/
 
 
I had a very similar experience to Mr. Hartley's at the SoCal CanJam when I was able to do a direct A-B comparison between one of FFRESPONSE's heavily-modded Audio Zenith PM-2 prototypes and a standard OPPO PM-2.
 
The difference was almost exactly as described above, and it gave me a new perspective on what ultra-low distortion and an ultra-flat FR actually sounds like.
 
And if the NightHawks can also offer very-low distortion at all reasonable SPL levels with a relatively flat FR for $599 (and they are also super-comfortable), then that is a very impressive achievement.

Thank you Skylar. Looking forward to the finished final design, hopefully by the end of May. Hope you nailed it.

Hey Skylar,
 
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks the THD plots in your post have been improperly presented.
 
 
On the graph below, how can the 85dB sweep have a uniformly higher THD level than the 90dB sweep, and the 90dB sweep have a higher THD level than the 95dB sweep?  And shouldn't the 100dB and 105dB plots be placed 5dB and 10dB higher (respectively) on the graph than the 95dB plot (when referenced to 1kHz)?

 
Also, on the graph below, it appears the THD plots have been placed in reverse order relative to their measured dB levels (when referenced to 1kHz).

 
Perhaps the best way to present these THD plots would be to create a GIF file with each of the plots being shown for 1-2 seconds, one after the other (from lowest to highest dB level), with all of them referenced to 1kHz.
 
 
 
And thanks again for your above post.  It goes a long way in explaining what I heard.  I'm still not sure if it is something that I will actually like, but I always try to approach everything with an open mind (and ears).   

wahsmoh said:

  They honestly sounded like dynamic drivers that were pretending to be planar drivers. I felt the overall distortion was very low and they had a nice sound that was balanced. I need more listening time but I was impressed off of the first listen
 

Click to expand...

so who trusts my ears now?? haha

xero1 said:

  Hey Skylar,
 
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks the THD plots in your post have been improperly presented.

Click to expand...

 
Yes, it does logically seem like the THD plots are improperly presented. I assure you, however, that they are quite correct.
 
Remember, THD is plotted as a percentage...in other words the harmonics are measured relative to the fundamental, regardless of absolute SPL output.
In a headphone driver, movement of the voicecoil, diaphragm, and surround (if there is a discrete one) is most linear only over a certain range...some critical range. Distortion is typically higher at low volumes then begins to decrease as SPL output is increased then starts to rapidly increase once we have pushed the transducer into a state of gross misbehavior at higher SPLs. This overall behavior will be different for every headphone driver.
 
In order to understand this phenomenon, we must also have an in-depth understanding of the underlying transducer mechanisms (beyond the scope of this post) and a full understanding of how the measurements are made. Without this understanding, it is extremely easy to misinterpret measurement data.
 
It's important to understand that headphone measurements are really only good for relative comparison.
We cannot trust the current state of headphone measurement gear and techniques to give us absolute results.
These comparisons must be of measurements taken in one testing system/environment (or 100% identical systems/environments) using identical methodologies.
I highly recommend that anyone interested in headphone measurements read Jude's excellent post here.
 
This is why I cannot post full measurements of NightHawk without also posting measurements of every other headphone that one might wish to compare it with. I have instead chosen one example for comparison. Again, the example headphone I compared NightHawk against is a highly-respected, popular flagship headphone whose performance is considered very good by most. This is why I think it's a valid comparison.
 
XERO1, thanks for the excellent idea about putting these graphs in gif format. I will try to do that soon and post them up.

skylargray said:

 
 
Distortion is typically higher at low volumes then begin to decrease as SPL output is increased then starts to rapidly increase once we have pushed the transducer into a state of gross misbehavior at higher SPLs. This overall behavior will be different for every headphone driver.
 

Click to expand...

Fascinating!
 
 
 

skylargray said:

 
 
XERO1, thanks for the excellent idea about putting these graphs in gif format. I will try to do that soon and post them up.

Click to expand...

 
Sweet!  No prob, Skyler!   
 
And thanks again for yet another very informative reply!

 
After reading Skylar's last post, what's kinda blowing my mind about the above graph is that the THD of the NightHawk actually gets 10x lower (from 0.3% THD 1kHz at 85dB to 0.03% THD 1kHz at 105dB) the louder the volume gets (from 20Hz to @2kHz)! 
 
And the THD only begins to rise from about 2kHz at 105dB and then peaks at the same THD level that the 85dB sweep is at!  
 
That's pretty damn impressive!