[Loquah]

Please help me understand why audioquest would produce such a high end headphone with such a low impedence? I thought the higher impedence eliminated a lot of the background noise.

I have listened to these phones i am not sure how much time they have been burned but i really liked them. I was considering buying but i know there are many awesome phones in this price point.

As far as I know, high impedance cans originally came about because of the need for professionals to have multiple cans plugged into a sound desk. Every time smooth paid is connected it halves the impedance seen by the desk so starting high keeps the sound desks happy. With low impedance cans, the lead would get too low for the desk.

It does also help with damping and noise, but I'm not sure that high impedance is necessarily better these days with such good engineering available in many amps.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

As far as I know, high impedance cans originally came about because of the need for professionals to have multiple cans plugged into a sound desk. Every time smooth paid is connected it halves the impedance seen by the desk so starting high keeps the sound desks happy. With low impedance cans, the lead would get too low for the desk.

It does also help with damping and noise, but I'm not sure that high impedance is necessarily better these days with such good engineering available in many amps.

 
I was also under the impression that older equipment tended to produce noise, so high impedance would alleviate that problem by requiring more power to push them.
 
The problem we're seeing now is that inefficiency is seen as a good thing. Like a headphone clearly can't be TOTL unless it requires $10,000 worth of amplification.

 

[inthere]

.

The problem we're seeing now is that inefficiency is seen as a good thing. Like a headphone clearly can't be TOTL unless it requires $10,000 worth of amplification.

Yeah, I've always felt that if you spend a grand+ on a headphone it should sound sensational on anything. However, the opposite is true..........an electrostatic headphone will only sound great on an electrostatic amp, which cost thousands.

I recently heard a tech called "Electrostatz" which is a hybrid electrostatic technology that runs great on smartphones. Company was called Mitchell and Johnson. I ordered a pair from their Kickstarter campaign that I heard at the Headroom event in London in January for only about $150, but there have been some delays and I believe I won't get my headphones until August. I hope they sort out their production issues because they were some of the best portables I've heard.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Yeah, I've always felt that if you spend a grand+ on a headphone it should sound sensational on anything. However, the opposite is true..........an electrostatic headphone will only sound great on an electrostatic amp, which cost thousands.

I recently heard a tech called "Electrostatz" which is a hybrid electrostatic technology that runs great on smartphones. Company was called Mitchell and Johnson. I ordered a pair from their Kickstarter campaign that I heard at the Headroom event in London in January for only about $150, but there have been some delays and I believe I won't get my headphones until August. I hope they sort out their production issues because they were some of the best portables I've heard.

 
Exactly man. If the amp is producing enough power to get them to comfortable listening levels... they're gonna sound roughly as good as they're gonna sound, barring the amp producing a really dirty signal. Tubes are a different story, admittedly.
 
Very curious about those Electrostatz, too. Also if I'm not mistaken Shure's new flagship IEM is an electrostat. Crazy expensive, but comes with a tiny little amp for smartphones.

 

[Loquah]

Damping is important and higher impedance can help with electrical damping, but a well designed headphone like the NightHawks will be mechanically damped in addition to the electrical damping from the amp so it should behave equally as well without requiring crazy amp setups.

Stats are a little different when it comes to amping, but there's no doubt that flagships from many companies have followed the high impedance trend with AKG being the only major player to buck the trend (Shure too, but playing at a different level).

I think for some, the finnicky nature of some high end phones provides a sense of achievement when they get the setup just right so the Hawks prevent that opportunity. No complaints here though...

 

[dmhenley]

Damping is important and higher impedance can help with electrical damping, but a well designed headphone like the NightHawks will be mechanically damped in addition to the electrical damping from the amp so it should behave equally as well without requiring crazy amp setups.

Stats are a little different when it comes to amping, but there's no doubt that flagships from many companies have followed the high impedance trend with AKG being the only major player to buck the trend (Shure too, but playing at a different level).

I think for some, the finnicky nature of some high end phones provides a sense of achievement when they get the setup just right so the Hawks prevent that opportunity. No complaints here though...

I think this last point is very interesting, and accurate, based on my experience.

 

[dmhenley]

Installed a stepped attenuator into the Bottlehead amp a couple nights back. A material gain in resolution, increase in volume range. This leads lead me to think it's delivering lower distortion, as well. All anectodal, of course. That said, the listening experience with the 'Hawks is substantially better - a testament, I think, to the linear performance of these headphones, that these subtle improvements are so readily apparent through listening. 

 

[Loquah]

Yeah, the Hawks manage to reveal everything in the source chain without shoving it in your face.

Have you added any resistors to the output to reduce the noise? I've been meaning to do that with my SEX for a while, but use the Mainline mostly.

 

[dmhenley]

Yeah, the Hawks manage to reveal everything in the source chain without shoving it in your face.

Have you added any resistors to the output to reduce the noise? I've been meaning to do that with my SEX for a while, but use the Mainline mostly.

I'd did do mcandmars mod...text copied from that post here:
100r Resistors: As suggested by PJ connecting two 100r resistors in series between the + and - terminals and grounding the center point serves to balance out the voltages on the DC side of the heater circuit. This simple modification seems to have a considerable effect in reducing background hum and is highly recommend if you are having issues. Connect one 100r resistor between terminal C1 to C3, and C2 to C3 as shown in the attached pic.

 

[Loquah]

I'd did do mcandmars mod...text copied from that post here:
100r Resistors: As suggested by PJ connecting two 100r resistors in series between the + and - terminals and grounding the center point serves to balance out the voltages on the DC side of the heater circuit. This simple modification seems to have a considerable effect in reducing background hum and is highly recommend if you are having issues. Connect one 100r resistor between terminal C1 to C3, and C2 to C3 as shown in the attached pic.

 
How did you find the resulting sound quality? Was the hum still audible at all?

 

[Videodr0me]

Here is my take on the Nighthawk. Quick version: The recessed mids and over emphasized bass make them almost unlistenable  - they sound like somebody put a wool blanket over everything. This together with the semi-closed nature of the headphones lead to a cramped/dark tonality with a lot of oomph. So why am i keeping them? First, they are supremely comfortable - the new suspension mechanism is a fantastic innovation. In fact they are the most comfortable HP in their weight class and even more comfortable than a lot of HPs weighing a lot less. Second,  i suspect that the driver - without any proof -  is OEMed by Fostex and is identical/nearly identical to the TH600, TH-X00, Teac etc.This means low-distortion (see innerfidelities measurements), great sub-bass extention (negliable less than the fostex cans due less pressure from the suspension mechanism for sealing the ears) and possibility for insane SPL levels. This makes them very good for equalisation. And low-and-behold once you raise the presence range to more conventional (HK curve or Sennheisers House Curve) levels and reduce the bass a little - they sound great. They are still semi-closed, so a little (10%) crossfeed takes the edge of studio recordings where instruments are placed in exactly one channel. One could also equalise the Fostex Family of HP but i found the Audioquest much more comfortable to wear. I have measures a number of rooms (including the AIX studios) with the realiser A8. This allows me to compare tonality of a virtualised room with the pure headphone sound, both over headphones. I find that the classical tunings (HK, Senn) sound much more than real loudspeakers (decent ones) in real rooms than audioquests nighthawk. This was consistent over a number of PRIRs i testet. On a plus side they make music from the 70s and also some of the dreaded 80s CDs listenable without any fatigue.
 
Bottom line - the bad:
very dark, bass heavy headphones with extremely recessed mids (to much for almost any taste i would dare to say),
 
Bottom line - the good:
supremely comfortable with innovative suspension mechanism,
low distortion, good sub-bass ->  very good for equalizing
 
I kept them, because after equalization they are fantastic, comfortable headphones and i prefer them to the Fostex TH-XXX (which are likely based on the same driver). For people who do not want to equalize i would say AVOID, except if you want to posess a real differently tuned headphone that gives you that muffled, small jazz club from the 60s kind of sound.

 

[inthere]

Welcome back!

 

[nicdub]

  Here is my take on the Nighthawk. Quick version: The recessed mids and over emphasized bass make them almost unlistenable  - they sound like somebody put a wool blanket over everything. This together with the semi-closed nature of the headphones lead to a cramped/dark tonality with a lot of oomph. So why am i keeping them? First, they are supremely comfortable - the new suspension mechanism is a fantastic innovation. In fact they are the most comfortable HP in their weight class and even more comfortable than a lot of HPs weighing a lot less. Second,  i suspect that the driver - without any proof -  is OEMed by Fostex and is identical/nearly identical to the TH600, TH-X00, Teac etc.This means low-distortion (see innerfidelities measurements), great sub-bass extention (negliable less than the fostex cans due less pressure from the suspension mechanism for sealing the ears) and possibility for insane SPL levels. This makes them very good for equalisation. And low-and-behold once you raise the presence range to more conventional (HK curve or Sennheisers House Curve) levels and reduce the bass a little - they sound great. They are still semi-closed, so a little (10%) crossfeed takes the edge of studio recordings where instruments are placed in exactly one channel. One could also equalise the Fostex Family of HP but i found the Audioquest much more comfortable to wear. I have measures a number of rooms (including the AIX studios) with the realiser A8. This allows me to compare tonality of a virtualised room with the pure headphone sound, both over headphones. I find that the classical tunings (HK, Senn) sound much more than real loudspeakers (decent ones) in real rooms than audioquests nighthawk. This was consistent over a number of PRIRs i testet. On a plus side they make music from the 70s and also some of the dreaded 80s CDs listenable without any fatigue.
 
Bottom line - the bad:
very dark, bass heavy headphones with extremely recessed mids (to much for almost any taste i would dare to say),
 
Bottom line - the good:
supremely comfortable with innovative suspension mechanism,
low distortion, good sub-bass ->  very good for equalizing
 
I kept them, because after equalization they are fantastic, comfortable headphones and i prefer them to the Fostex TH-XXX (which are likely based on the same driver). For people who do not want to equalize i would say AVOID, except if you want to posess a real differently tuned headphone that gives you that muffled, small jazz club from the 60s kind of sound.

Any particular eq settings you would recommend?

 

[dmhenley]

   
How did you find the resulting sound quality? Was the hum still audible at all?

The mod reduced the hum, but it's still audible through the Nighthawks. 

 

[Videodr0me]

  Any particular eq settings you would recommend?

 
I typically use the in-ear microphones of the realiser to measure the HPEQ (XFACT 1.0, 1.0, 0.4) and use it together with an PRIR of the AIX Studio-room. The HPEQ file format is proprietary so i do not know how to extract the measured curve. But I also did a quick-and-dirty profile for my windows 10 machine which looks like this:
 
http://s32.postimg.org/6p1hkb091/Eql_Nighthawk.png
 
it also includes 10% crossfeed. I used "Equaliser APO 1.1.1" found here:
 
https://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/
 
have fun!