[kman1211]

  When I read it I see a lot of snake oil but I also see his point. Firstly when he mentions flagship headphone, he doesn't go into detail but shows a graph of a something that is exaggerated  and just calls it a flagship headpohne and uses that as a reference to prove how balanced the NH is..
 
No top headphone measures like that so it's not a good reference at all. Yes compared to the graph of that headphone "flagship headphone" the NH measures better. I feel the comparison is poor but his point is valid. I also don't think the Nighthawk as a product performs like he personally say and that his goal is not reached and the Nighthawk is an experiment. 
 
We shall see! 

There is obviously some advertising going on, but honestly the main points he does seem to cite it. The Nighthawk is balanced compared to many flagships(a lot of flagships have had balance issues) and he doesn't really say which flagship he used in comparison. But the Nighthawk actually does measure better than most flagships in terms distortion, square waves, etc. The real debate comes down to whether he's right on the actual tuning of the headphone or not. I am curious how the eventual replacement/upgrade to the Nighthawk will sound.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

I will say this: the Nighthawk feels closer to the live experience than other headphones I've had. Those "neutral" headphones don't feel like you're actually there. They feel like the music has been flattened out.

 

[JMCIII]

   
This needs more attention. When we talk about recordings sounding "right", this always seems to assume that the recording was perfectly mastered and that it was mixed not only ON 100% linear monitors but that the person doing it didn't have any biases in their own ear.
 
It's one of the problems with ever declaring a headphone "perfect", because it just assumes that whatever's being pumped into them is a perfectly neutral recording and the headphone is the only spot in the chain that imparts any coloration. More than that, it assumes that the studio style of "flat and neutral" is optimal for LISTENING.

 
 
One way to tell is to have two different versions of the same music. I have the original XRCD's of a number of the old AudioQuest discs, and was recently sent a new compilation of some of those tracks on a new XRCD24 disc (review here on my Facebook Page: John Crossett - Audio Writer :https://www.facebook.com/JohnMauriceCrossettIii/posts/327241814066086:0) and I can say that to my ears the NightHawks reproduce the diverse vocal styles and sounds in a realistic manner. 100% accurate? I can't say as I wasn't in on the original recording session, but they sound just as good though the NightHawks as they ever have through my main system - for what it's worth......

 

[waynes world]

  I am curious how the eventual replacement/upgrade to the Nighthawk will sound.

 
I can't wait until the replacement/upgrade is available, because then I might be able to afford a used original version. Actually, I've seen them in the classifieds for close to $400US which seems like a steal, but the damned Canadian exchange rate messes that up good (ie turns $400US into $600CAD - ouch).
 
Patience is a virtue, right?

 

[kman1211]

  I will say this: the Nighthawk feels closer to the live experience than other headphones I've had. Those "neutral" headphones don't feel like you're actually there. They feel like the music has been flattened out.

I agree, I don't get the depth and dimension I get with the Nighthawks in my other headphones. The HD 650 sounds fuzzy compared to my other headphones, especially the Nighthawks. I can see how the HD 650s warm fuzzy sound can appeal to so many, but it doesn't sound quite right.

   
I can't wait until the replacement/upgrade is available, because then I might be able to afford a used original version. Actually, I've seen them in the classifieds for close $400US which seems like a steal, but the damned Canadian exchange rate messes that up good (ie turns $400US into $600CAD - ouch).
 
Patience is a virtue, right?

That's true, it does seem to lower the price, I got lucky and got my Nighthawks for $400. That is messed up how much more it's there in Canada.

 

[waynes world]

  That's true, it does seem to lower the price, I got lucky and got my Nighthawks for $400. That is messed up how much more it's there in Canada.

 
I need to whine about it now and then, so thanks for your empathy! 

 

[inthere]

When you've owned some of the best amps in the world you tend to not fall for the BS of A is way better than B.
The SEX is decent, just because it is more expensive doesn't mean anything. The Vali competes with a lot of amps, the upper end is a bit smoothed over if anything. I like the Vali because it has something natural sounding about it, it's never harsh, doesn't feel like it's lacking and also doesn't cost silly money!

 
I presently have 18 amps and DACs, 43 headphones, early last year I had over 100. I've given away/loaned out a lot to friends, family, and several Head Fi members. I've had some of the best amps and headphones and I don't fall for BS either. Most expensive DAC is $6000 and least expensive one is $79. About 8 months ago i ran tests on the digital conversion quality of several of my DACs and all except one nulled. Null means the audio files are exactly the same, so they cancel each other out. The $6000 one and a $4000 DAC both nulled with the $79 one. The only one that didn't null was a tube DAC. I posted some of the files over on the sound science forum because the tube DAC didn't null with itself when I changed tubes, and I thought that was interesting. 
 
I listen myself and I also measure myself. I also get 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even 5th opinions to correlate or counter my own impressions.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

   
I presently have 18 amps and DACs, 43 headphones, early last year I had over 100. I've given away/loaned out a lot to friends, family, and several Head Fi members. I've had some of the best amps and headphones and I don't fall for BS either. Most expensive DAC is $6000 and least expensive one is $79. About 8 months ago i ran tests on the digital conversion quality of several of my DACs and all except one nulled. Null means the audio files are exactly the same, so they cancel each other out. The $6000 one and a $4000 DAC both nulled with the $79 one. The only one that didn't null was a tube DAC. I posted some of the files over on the sound science forum because the tube DAC didn't null with itself when I changed tubes, and I thought that was interesting. 
 
I listen myself and I also measure myself. I also get 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even 5th opinions to correlate or counter my own impressions.

 
Got a link to that DAC thread? I'm way curious about both the results and the methodology.

 

[Fearless1]

I presently have 18 amps and DACs, 43 headphones, early last year I had over 100. I've given away/loaned out a lot to friends, family, and several Head Fi members. I've had some of the best amps and headphones and I don't fall for BS either. Most expensive DAC is $6000 and least expensive one is $79. About 8 months ago i ran tests on the digital conversion quality of several of my DACs and all except one nulled. Null means the audio files are exactly the same, so they cancel each other out. The $6000 one and a $4000 DAC both nulled with the $79 one. The only one that didn't null was a tube DAC. I posted some of the files over on the sound science forum because the tube DAC didn't null with itself when I changed tubes, and I thought that was interesting. 

I listen myself and I also measure myself. I also get 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even 5th opinions to correlate or counter my own impressions.

All the DACs I own must be exceptions to this theory, mine all have a different sound signature. It is not a significant difference with some, but there is an audible difference. The Yggy makes is a substantial improvement over everything else I own.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

All the DACs I own must be exceptions to this theory, mine all have a different sound signature. It is not a significant difference with some, but there is an audible difference. The Yggy makes is a substantial improvement over everything else I own.

 
I'd be curious to see which you have that inthere tested, then.

 

[SearchOfSub]

I agree it does offer something different. I enjoy it's unique presentation but when people say it's natural I can't take that seriously I'm sorry. There's a difference between showing bass levels and a realistic presentation. The Nighthawk still has a boost in the mid bass and this is back up by all graphs and also reviewers like Tyll, Marv also noted the mid bass hump. I do see that it will play heavy bass in the recording but the mid bass doesn't just make things sound bassy, it also influences the tone and gives them that warm tone that they have. It sounds sultry because of it. 

What makes the Nighthawk unique is it is a U shaped headphone but it's warm, not aggressive with stock pads. Most U shaped headphones are on the bright side but the treble isn't boosted too much. There are treble peaks but it's hard to find with the stock pads and it will depend on how good your ears are. The Signature of the Nighthawk is hard to escape as it has that reverb and warmness that follow you so it's always obvious you are listening to a headphone, the newest LCD-2 and HD650(On a good set up) Sounds like real life, there's differences and it's not always obvious I'm listening to headphones. 

I honestly feel people want to love this headphone because it looks nice, has good innovation and an interesting sound but most just can't get past the colouration while many, have been unsure but are also influenced by others praise and Audioquest information page that they eat it up and believe this is really what music sounds like..I'm sorry  I don't mean this to offend anyone but I'm just calling it like I see it.


I personally fit in the category where I appreciate what it brings and use it as a second headphone. When you've heard the best headphones in the world you tend to see faults easier. Some headphones are boosted like the Beyers, HD800 but they are poor comparisons because they are boosted to extract detail. I think the Nighthawk is just a different flavour that hasn't quite found a place in the headphone world yet as it doesn't really sound natural, it's warm, bassy but also has decent plankton extracting capabilities. It's a difficult one to fit into a collection.

Also when people criticize the Nighthawk the couple of replies seem ot be, "You don't like accurate you want boosted highs and mids) Erm no! I want a headphone that doesn't sound congested, sucked out in the upper mids and natural in the voices! Still, I like the Hawks because it offers that "different" we all seek but don't always have to courage to seek.

Rambling on and on... Nothing sounds like real instruments and real human voices unless you are hearing it live like you just spoke to your co-worker at work today. Not even a $300,000 system would do that, might as well go with a system that gives most musicality and euphoria to sound. And Nighthawks are it.

 

[Fearless1]

I'd be curious to see which you have that inthere tested, then.

And the methodology that he used.

I have a neutral, passive preamp( that I use for volume control) that I can run four inputs to at a time. I also have an optical splitter that is active and evenly splits the signal two ways (for USB testing I have to unplug and plug in so I will not comment on that aspect). I can have two DACs hooked into my set-up at the same time to A/B test them with a simple button push.

Like I said there is a difference to my ears (albeit slight from some, much more significant in others). I have tried around 25 or so.

Sorry for the off topic.

 

[inthere]

All the DACs I own must be exceptions to this theory, mine all have a different sound signature. It is not a significant difference with some, but there is an audible difference. The Yggy makes is a substantial improvement over everything else I own.

 
 I tested the internal digital conversion quality, which meant everything stayed in the digital realm. I wanted to see if there was a difference between the different DAC chips, and what i found basically was that the different DAC chips don't really matter; the audible differences are going to be in the signal chain going out, either with tuning or amplification or both. 

 

[Fearless1]

That makes sense, the implementation of the chip is where one would hear a difference.

 

[inthere]

And the methodology that he used.

I have a neutral, passive preamp( that I use for volume control) that I can run four inputs to at a time. I also have an optical splitter that is active and evenly splits the signal two ways (for USB testing I have to unplug and plug in so I will not comment on that aspect). I can have two DACs hooked into my set-up at the same time to A/B test them with a simple button push.

Like I said there is a difference to my ears (albeit slight from some, much more significant in others). I have tried around 25 or so.

Sorry for the off topic.

 
 I render the files internally using Logic X. There's no need for volume matching because the same file plays over and over again, and I switch out different DACs after each play.  The duration is always the same because I loop a section. 
 
 Once the file is rendered, you invert phase on one of the tracks and when you play it back, any differences between the two files will be heard. If there's no difference, there's total silence. That's null testing.