Dark Trio
 
I decided to do this review as these are all headphones considered to be on the dark side by the community and this is to help people with their decision on which headphone they should get, I'll try to explain their differences to the best of my abilities and may add more to or edit the review later on. I waited on this review as I wanted to get out of a potential honeymoon period with the Nighthawks. I've owned the Nighthawks for about a month now and feel I can now make an unbiased opinion of the three in comparison to each other according to my system and ears.
 
Audioquest Nighthawks: These semi-open headphones are pretty much the new kid on the block and are basically trying to find their place in the headphone audiophile world. Seems to be a polarizing headphone here on Head-Fi.
 

 
 
Beyerdynamic DT 150: These headphones have been out since the 1980s making them the oldest headphone of the three. The closed headphone that sounds like an open-back. A favorite among professionals particularly in Europe, but not often used or heard of among the audiophile community. These headphones vintage and utilitarian design seems to put off some potential buyers.
 

 
 
Sennheiser HD 650: A favorite among the audiophile community for their slightly dark and euphoric sound. These headphones are praised for good reason, they do so much right and so little wrong.
 

 
 
System: The system I'm using to compare these headphones comprises of the Lyr 2(Amperex Bugle Boy, Amperex Fat Bottle(2 different sets), and GE Red Labels tubes) for my amp. The HRT Music Streamer HD for my DAC. The Schiit Wyrd and Audioquest Jitterbug are used for USB audio clean-up. Furman M8x2 for a power conditioner. Cables include ELA Audio Solid Silver RCA to RCA interconnects, Ice Age Audio power cables(one to Lyr 2 and one to the Desktop computer), and 2 Pangea Audio SPC USB cables. The headphones all use the stock cables with the Nighthawks using the thicker stock cable.
 
Music and Listening: I am not going to be comparing these based on specific songs as I am comparing these headphones on a whole in regards to a wide variety of music, movies/tv show, and gaming usage. I may compare the headphones on a certain song or album upon request. Some music I listened to in comparing the headphones was Enya, Enigma, E Nomine, Creedance Clearwater Revival, Celtic Thunder, Daft Punk, Deadmau5, Infected Mushroom, B-52's, Gotye, Juanes, Steely Dan, Dead Can Dance, Pendulum, Buddha Bar, Tchaikovsky, Oomph!, Disturbed, and countless more.
 

Build Quality and Comfort

 
Audioquest Nighthawk: Of the three headphones the Nighthawks have the most solid and heftiest build of the three. They are the most premium feeling, the liquid wood lacquer finished earcups exude quality. There is very little plastic in the construction of these headphones. They have an AKG-esque headband. The entire build of the headphone seems to be designed purely for comfort and acoustic properties making for a unique fitting and looking headphone. Comfort wise these have to be the most comfortable headphones I've ever owned as the earcups, headband, and clamp are just right for my ears. They feel more closed on the head than open, but just enough airflow comes in to help stuffiness. 
 
Beyerdynamic DT 150: The build on these headphones is quite robust and are quality but I do find the earpads kind of cheap feeling. The earcups are made of a tough and robust ABS plastic and the headband is made of spring steel with a rubberized surround that is cover by a faux-leather headband. Comfort of the headphone is quite good, I find they are the least clampy of the three headphones and the sliding mechanism of the earcups is a bit strange to get used to. They do get a bit stuffy and hot as these headphones are completely sealed. This is one of the few Beyers with a removable cable.
 
Sennheiser HD 650: These headphones are very modular in design and are made of a hard glossy plastic with metal headband adjusters. Build quality is better than they may seem at first, they aren't made cheaply like many lower-end Sennheisers are. The headband adjustment is a typical slide click adjustment found in most headphones. Comfort wise these are quite open making them the most breathable and the earpads are comfortable. Clamp is a little high at first but eases with use.
 
Sound
 
Audioquest Nighthawk: The Nighthawks are interesting sounding headphones, they set themselves apart from the norm in how they present their sound. The Nighthawks have a very coherent and full-bodied sound that is very smooth and clean sounding. Being a bit more speaker-like and laid-back in their presentation compared to any other headphone I've owned. I have found the sound and vocals of these headphones to vary quite a bit in presence depending on the tubes or system I use, ranging from recessed to forward in the midrange. Overly warm to slightly cold. This makes synergy very important with these headphones. The soundstaging and imaging on these headphones are excellent, a very well-rounded soundstage with no blobbing effects, the sound isn't mainly focused on the L/C/R like most headphones are, instead it's one whole image and nothing seems out of place. They have the most 3D sounding soundstage of the headphones I have owned.
 
The bass is very robust and punchy but clean and articulate, sort of like planar bass, the bass has really good extension, the sub-bass is all there. The upper bass does influence the mids a bit, but it doesn't obscure the vocals a bit like some headphones can, though some may find this effect to sound muddy to their ears. The treble is pretty much completely grain free making it extremely smooth up top, though if there is a problem with your system or recording you will definitely hear recording artifacts and brightness induced by the system. The mids of these headphones are fantastic, they have some of the best vocals I have come across, they may not be quite as forward in the mids as the HD 650 and DT 150 but it's only slightly less forward but the tonality and how fleshed out the vocals is something special and they are silky smooth yet the natural sibilants are still there. Nothing really sounds out of place with these headphones. These headphones are great at resolving sound as I hear subtle sounds such as breathing, the plucking of a guitar, hiss in a recording, etc. with greater ease than either the DT 150 and HD 650.
 
Gaming wise I would rate these the best as they sound the most three dimensional and small details are the easiest to pick out. Movies I would rate these best as well due to their powerful bass and 3 dimensional soundstage. TV shows and spoken word I would rate these number 2.
 
Beyerdynamic DT 150: The Beyerdynamic DT 150's were a surprise to me when I first got them, they sounded open despite being closed. Of the three headphones I consider these the brightest and leanest sounding overall, not by much though. These headphones have excellent soundstaging and imaging, being quite 3D and spacious sounding with good depth, not to the degree of the nighthawks but noticeable. You won't really notice these are closed unless there is some outside noise or when you talk. While underpowered these can sound slightly hollow and cavernous.
 
The bass of these headphones is probably it's weakest aspect, it has good extension but it is suffering from a bit of a lack of impact compared to the HD 650 and especially the Nighthawk and it is a little on the slow side. The mids are this headphones best aspect, very clean with a bit less warmth than the HD 650 and Nighthawk vocal wise, they are very present and I find these headphones to do excellent with both male and female vocals, the vocals can have an eerily haunting effect at times. The treble I find I both like and dislike at the same time, it's clean and quite grain free in the treble but there is a bit of a small peak in the upper treble regions(has a slight Beyer-peak), this adds some energy and zest to the sound that isn't found in the HD 650 or Nighthawks but may also bother some people. If you want a bit more energy than the HD 650 or Nighthawks, these are a great option. Detail retrieval I found these about the same as the HD 650 except I found the HD 650 to resolve more detail in the bass.
 
Gaming wise I would rate these the second best, their 3D soundstage and slightly leaner sound than the other two lend itself well in terms of gaming. Movies I would rank these number three as their bass isn't quite as powerful as the other two. TV shows and spoken word I would rank these number one due to their slightly leaner bass and somewhat more forward highs while having prominent mids which highlights the vocals a little more in these applications(these are broadcast headphones so it makes sense it shines in this area). 
 
Sennheiser HD 650: The HD 650 is one of the few Sennheisers I like as it's one of the few that seem to engage me in the music. The soundstage of the HD 650 is quite good and has good depth to it, it does have a bit more of a 3 blob effect separating the right, left, and center more than the Nighthawk and DT 150. Soundstage is a little wider than the DT 150 but not quite as deep. Has a bit less width than Nighthawk and the Nighthawk also is a good deal deeper with better layering. This is another synergy dependent headphone, can sound oddly gritty and/or ill-defined with bad synergy, or extremely smooth and controlled with good synergy.
 
The bass on the HD 650 is excellent, I found it has a slight wooden tone to it and have plenty of impact to it, not as much as the Nighthawk but not too far off. The midrange is one of the best areas of this headphones, vocals sounds great and fleshed out with just the right amount of energy but there is a tinge of grain in the mids. I found the mids to have a bit of an inherent warmth through it, seems to layer over the mids like the Nighthwaks with a bit of a different tone than found in the Nighthawks. The DT 150 seems devoid of any warmth in comparison but isn't cold either. The highs are excellent on this headphone, which are smoother and not as uneven as the DT 150's highs. Very smooth and clean, I wouldn't personally consider it dark but can definitely see others saying it's dark, not quite as clean and resolving as the Nighthawks treble but not that far off.
 
Gaming wise I would rank these number three as they aren't as 3 dimensional as the other two but they do well with gaming. Movie wise these are number 2 as their powerful bass and lush mids lend themselves well to movies. TV shows and spoken word, I would rank these number three.
 
Conclusion
 
Overall I personally find the Audioquest Nighthawk the best headphone of the three, it sounds the most natural and coherent to my ears overall, they are very close to my personal ideal sonically. The second best of these headphones is the HD 650 and true to it's reputation, it's something truly special and an engaging listen with an unique euphony that's not found even in the HD 600, it's slightly off imaging and soundstaging and slight grain makes these a bit less close to what I consider the ideal but these come very close to the ideal and have my hearty recommendation. I can definitely see some people preferring these to the Nighthawks due to their unique tone. The DT 150 I would place in last for me despite having somewhat better overall resolution and clarity than the HD 650, regardless it's an excellent headphone and has fantastic mids, vocals, and great imaging, but the slightly slow bass, some lack of impact of the bass, and slightly uneven treble hold back this headphone some, though those looking for a slightly leaner and brighter headphone than the HD 650 and Nighthawk will likely love the DT 150.

I'll take issue with your lumping the NightHawks as "dark." To my ears, they are not dark at all. No, they don't have the brightness of say the AKG K701's, but that's only because the NightHawks have bass which the AKG's (and other "bright" headphones usually lack.) I find the NightHawks to be extemelly neutral, their sound shaped more by the amp they are paired with than any sonic signature of their own. But as I noted, they do have a deep, full, detailed bass and I can see where those whose headphone tastes run toward cans that don't do bass would find these "dark." But again, to me, they are an even across the board headphone that offers all the detail one could ask, but detail that is part of the music, not thrust at you. For my further, more complete thoughts on these excellent headphones, check out my review here:

https://www.facebook.com/JohnMauriceCrossettIii/posts/303608523096082:0

jmciii said:

I'll take issue with your lumping the NightHawks as "dark." To my ears, they are not dark at all. No, they don't have the brightness of say the AKG K701's, but that's only because the NightHawks have bass which the AKG's (and other "bright" headphones usually lack.) I find the NightHawks to be extemelly neutral, their sound shaped more by the amp they are paired with than any sonic signature of their own. But as I noted, they do have a deep, full, detailed bass and I can see where those whose headphone tastes run toward cans that don't do bass would find these "dark." But again, to me, they are an even across the board headphone that offers all the detail one could ask, but detail that is part of the music, not thrust at you. For my further, more complete thoughts on these excellent headphones, check out my review here:

https://www.facebook.com/JohnMauriceCrossettIii/posts/303608523096082:0

Click to expand...

I was referring to dark as what most people consider dark, to my ears they are one of the most neutral headphones I've heard. I personally don't find them dark nor the HD 650 or DT 150(which I find slightly bright).

Awesome write-up kman!!! I completely agree with your assessment and I also think the nighthawk is rather dark especially for an audiophile headphone, but in a good way.

jmciii said:

I'll take issue with your lumping the NightHawks as "dark." To my ears, they are not dark at all. No, they don't have the brightness of say the AKG K701's, but that's only because the NightHawks have bass which the AKG's (and other "bright" headphones usually lack.) I find the NightHawks to be extemelly neutral, their sound shaped more by the amp they are paired with than any sonic signature of their own. But as I noted, they do have a deep, full, detailed bass and I can see where those whose headphone tastes run toward cans that don't do bass would find these "dark." But again, to me, they are an even across the board headphone that offers all the detail one could ask, but detail that is part of the music, not thrust at you. For my further, more complete thoughts on these excellent headphones, check out my review here:

https://www.facebook.com/JohnMauriceCrossettIii/posts/303608523096082:0

Click to expand...

 
''If the Nighthawk isn't a dark sounding headphone I don't know what is.'' 
 
And so I don't understand and don't agree with the description of neutral. Let alone extremely neutral. I'm in the camp accross the street where we say its overall tone is warm, dark and makes a coloured headphone. Quite sure our points of reference has a lot to do with it but agree I cannot.

I think the problem is that the headphone industry at the moment has a surfeit of bright and fatiguing phones.  Therefore, the Nighthawks come off as "dark".  Why can't we think of the overly-bright HD800 as the headphone that is "colored" and the Nighthawk as neutral?
 
I'm struggling with a decision at the moment:  Ditch the anal-probe HD800 for the Nighthawk?  What do you think I should do?  Mud or migraines?

Nice write up. The only things I found about HD650 is this grain but it could easily be down to a number of factors and the soundstage. The soundstage of the HD650 is extremely coherent with my tube amps and flat as a board with my entry level Fiio, again could be gear.

I also do wonder if there's quite a bit of production variation going on as people either say the NH is suffocating with is warmth and some get a cleaner less lush headphone. The only thing they seem to all have in common is the recessed upper mids which keeps them breathing.

But yeah it was nicely written.

jmciii said:

I'll take issue with your lumping the NightHawks as "dark." To my ears, they are not dark at all. No, they don't have the brightness of say the AKG K701's, but that's only because the NightHawks have bass which the AKG's (and other "bright" headphones usually lack.) I find the NightHawks to be extemelly neutral, their sound shaped more by the amp they are paired with than any sonic signature of their own. But as I noted, they do have a deep, full, detailed bass and I can see where those whose headphone tastes run toward cans that don't do bass would find these "dark." But again, to me, they are an even across the board headphone that offers all the detail one could ask, but detail that is part of the music, not thrust at you. For my further, more complete thoughts on these excellent headphones, check out my review here:

https://www.facebook.com/JohnMauriceCrossettIii/posts/303608523096082:0

Click to expand...

They are dark, deal with it when a FR slips down; it's a dark headphone. You have to suck it up man and let it sink in! Besides dark isn't bad..I love dark phones. The NH was my night time can as it has muted upper ranges and they really bonded with my ears after dark.

greggf said:

  I think the problem is that the headphone industry at the moment has a surfeit of bright and fatiguing phones.  Therefore, the Nighthawks come off as "dark".  Why can't we think of the overly-bright HD800 as the headphone that is "colored" and the Nighthawk as neutral?
 
I'm struggling with a decision at the moment:  Ditch the anal-probe HD800 for the Nighthawk?  What do you think I should do?  Mud or migraines?

Click to expand...

 It's down to personal preference. I ditched my HD800's years ago because they were "bright and fatiguing". This was down to my listening level, which is quite high. Every time I tried to push the volume, the highs were pretty grating. Tube amps tamed the highs a bit, but not enough. 
 
I found darker cans and tube amps more suitable to my particular listening style. A bonus was tube amps make up the difference in soundstage vs most solid state amps. Alpha Dogs are perfectly suited for the way I listen to music, so are TH600's, and Nighthawks are my favorites now. 
 
I think you'll find in most cases that people that enjoy bright cans listen at much lower levels because it's not humanly possible to blast volume on them without pain. Listening at lower levels you're able to pick out details a lot better with bright cans. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. BUT, I would love to hear what those of you who consider the NightHawks dark previous (or still current) reference headphones was? ( I came from the AKG K701's) Also, please describe what the word "dark" means to you. I'm not trying to start anything, just curious as to thoughts. For myself, when I review gear I'd describe as dark, it's because the sound of the piece covers up detail. To me that's dark gear. There's a difference between rich and dark. Rich is something that fully fleshes out instruments and vocals (which the NightHawks do very well), dark covers over detail. Using that, then the NightHawks are about as far from dark as I can think of. All the detail is there, it's just a part of the music (as it should be), and not thrust at you as some "brighter" headphones do. But they are a rich sounding headphones.
 
But, each of us has our own priorities and biases and preferences. And that's cool. Find the cans that deliver music the way you find best and enjoy. No one is right or wrong here.

greggf said:

   Why can't we think of the overly-bright HD800 as the headphone that is "colored" and the Nighthawk as neutral?

Click to expand...

 
I think it's mostly one's point of reference that determines descriptors like warm, cold, neutral etc. A personal sometimes collective baseline that was decided on at some point. I don't know how it works for others but at hearing music or overall tone (in a headphone) I associate these descriptors very fast. This probably plays a large role and a very personal one in deciding which is what. At the end of the day there's seems to be no rules to the game because it's said we all hear differently. And so we'll always have different opinions on these matters.
 
About the HD800 being coloured, in my limited experience it for sure is less than NH but that doesn't mean it isn't coloured. Just on the other side of neutral towards bright or less appropriate.. cold? YMMV
 

I'm struggling with a decision at the moment:  Ditch the anal-probe HD800 for the Nighthawk?  What do you think I should do?  Mud or migraines?

Click to expand...

 
I bet you're struggling  As I am for words. To my ears VERY different headphones and I feel quite safe to say HD800 is in another league. Unless you're really fed up with the Senn the two would rather make a complementary pair.

jmciii said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. BUT, I would love to hear what those of you who consider the NightHawks dark previous (or still current) reference headphones was? ( I came from the AKG K701's) Also, please describe what the word "dark" means to you. I'm not trying to start anything, just curious as to thoughts. For myself, when I review gear I'd describe as dark, it's because the sound of the piece covers up detail. To me that's dark gear. There's a difference between rich and dark. Rich is something that fully fleshes out instruments and vocals (which the NightHawks do very well), dark covers over detail. Using that, then the NightHawks are about as far from dark as I can think of. All the detail is there, it's just a part of the music (as it should be), and not thrust at you as some "brighter" headphones do. But they are a rich sounding headphones.
But, each of us has our own priorities and biases and preferences. And that's cool. Find the cans that deliver music the way you find best and enjoy. No one is right or wrong here.

Click to expand...

Dark is bass and mids over treble. Thing with dark headphones is they are more detailed when you settle. If you demo the NH quickly it sounds off but after time you appreciate it more and detail is easier to find.

hachiko270296 said:

Dark is bass and mids over treble. Thing with dark headphones is they are more detailed when you settle. If you demo the NH quickly it sounds off but after time you appreciate it more and detail is easier to find.

Click to expand...

 Again, we'll agree to disagree over defining the word " dark." But your point on auditioning the NightHawks is spot on! All the detail one could ask for is there, within the music where it should be. If that's what you want to hear, you'll hear it. If not, you can just kick back and enjoy the music.

hachiko270296 said:

Nice write up. The only things I found about HD650 is this grain but it could easily be down to a number of factors and the soundstage. The soundstage of the HD650 is extremely coherent with my tube amps and flat as a board with my entry level Fiio, again could be gear.

I also do wonder if there's quite a bit of production variation going on as people either say the NH is suffocating with is warmth and some get a cleaner less lush headphone. The only thing they seem to all have in common is the recessed upper mids which keeps them breathing.

But yeah it was nicely written.

Click to expand...

Thank you. The grain does vary on the HD 650 for sure. I have found the soundstage to change a fair amount from amp to amp, though honestly I find the DAC can sometimes play a bigger role in terms of soundstaging and grain than amps.
 
Who knows, everyone who has heard my Nighthawk think it sounds better than all my other headphones. Could be a variation thing, every headphone model has at least some variation so not unheard of. I have found my Nighthawk to vary quite a bit on my tubes, can definitely sound too warm and dark on some tubes. But I have found with SS gear and more neutral tubes they definitely don't sound overly lush. I think the Nighthawks sound their best with neutral sounding tubes personally. So far I have found what tubes sounds best on the Nighthawks also sounds best on the HD 650. The DT 150 on the other hand wants different tubes to sound it's best.

jackson9696 said:

Awesome write-up kman!!! I completely agree with your assessment and I also think the nighthawk is rather dark especially for an audiophile headphone, but in a good way.

Click to expand...

Thank you. They are definitely what are considered dark among the headphone audiophile community. I think these headphones will appeal more to those who hold their standards more to speakers.