[Bern2]

  Can you link me to dales recommendation for EQ? 

Post 3036 (page 203)of this thread.....I've been using joeq70's settings (post 3181 page 213) which are a few pages back.  Really nice.
 
Bern

 

[Loquah]

Just confirming the Nighthawk > LCD-2.2(F) sentiments, I sold my LCD-2.2 (pre-Fazor) once I got the Nighthawks - I just didn't listen to the LCDs anymore

 

[Badas]

  Just confirming the Nighthawk > LCD-2.2(F) sentiments, I sold my LCD-2.2 (pre-Fazor) once I got the Nighthawks - I just didn't listen to the LCDs anymore

I sold my LCD-X last week and took a listen between my LCD-3C and Hawk last night. I think the LCD-3C is going to get dusty as well. Preferred the Hawk. You just can't beat how it handles treble.

 

[Loquah]

 
I sold my LCD-X last week and took a listen between my LCD-3C and Hawk last night. I think the LCD-3C is going to get dusty as well. Preferred the Hawk. You just can't beat how it handles treble.

 
Thanks to Skylar's goal to achieve ultra-low distortion I think

 

[Badas]

   
Thanks to Skylar's goal to achieve ultra-low distortion I think

Yes. Absolutely.
 
This HP changed my thinking. I thought you had to have a Planar for bass and mid-range. Well the Hawks beat the LCD-3 in both using a dynamic driver. Then there is the treble. Hawks are sooooooo under rated.

 

[kman1211]

 
Yes. Absolutely.
 
This HP changed my thinking. I thought you had to have a Planar for bass and mid-range. Well the Hawks beat the LCD-3 in both using a dynamic driver. Then there is the treble. Hawks are sooooooo under rated.

Dynamics are honestly underestimated at times, it's just so few have done them right or the tuning on the truly good dynamics aren't done well. Problem with dynamics is how wildly varied their quality can be. The absolute best headphone I've heard to my ears was a dynamic driver headphone(it's not the Nighthawks). What got me so excited about the Nighthawks when I first started reading about them is the amount of thought and effort that went into designing them and they definitely haven't disappointed me.

 

[grizzlybeast]

^Dynamic drivers are my Fav... And I like biocellulose a whole lot. They always have this smooth liquid texture that is awesome!
Quote:

 

   
Thanks to Skylar's goal to achieve ultra-low distortion I think

Yes. Absolutely.
 
This HP changed my thinking. I thought you had to have a Planar for bass and mid-range. Well the Hawks beat the LCD-3 in both using a dynamic driver. Then there is the treble. Hawks are sooooooo under rated.

I can see why you feel this way but... The LCD3 bass is very over rated. The NH's don't have the inner detail of the LCD3. The LCD3 has a very detailed and nuanced midrange, atleast from my memory. 
 
EDIT: I had the LCD3F maybe 3C bass is better than 3F

?

 

[Arcamera]

And I like biocellulose a whole lot. They always have this smooth liquid texture that is awesome!

^^^^Yeah, I think it's the way to go.

 

[kman1211]

Dynamic drivers are my Fav... And I like biocellulose a whole lot. They always have this smooth liquid texture that is awesome!

Agree, they are. I wish the Sony biocellulose will come back though, especially the one on the R10, true audio nirvana there. I also found the ancient DT 48 aluminum drivers to be freakishly smooth, liquid, and textured.
 
I found the pre-fazor Audeze's to be warmer and heavier in the bass in my listening. It's been a while since I heard them though.

 

[SearchOfSub]

LCD's weight prob. 1st day it's fine, 2nd day soso. come 3rd day you start getting a little neck strain. Right now, don't really wanna have it on because of the weight. Been 5 days...

 

[397324]

Hi All
 
Just to let you know, I have a pair of Nighthawkes for sale:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/816550/audioquest-nighthawk-headphones-mint
 
Regards
 
Darren

 

[djevoultion]

  Post 3036 (page 203)of this thread.....I've been using joeq70's settings (post 3181 page 213) which are a few pages back.  Really nice.
 
Bern

 
Thanks Bern. I'm testing out Dales settings. For ease of reference of others, I've posted the settings below (using Equalizer APO):- 
 

 Audioquest Nighthawk ---------------------- 150: -4.0 (Note: Q=0.7) 300: -3.0 (Note: Q=0.5) 600: -3.0 (Note: Q=0.7) 950: +7.0 3000: +4.0 5000: +2.0 8000: +5.0 (Note: Q=3.0)

 
I'll give joeq70's settings a go but from a quick look it seems like it emphases the bass even more and reduces the midrange - I'm after the opposite. 
 
Edit: These settings appear to work quite well too  - there is increased sub bass and mid bass over Dale's above settings but I also noticed a tizz on some instruments (might need to reduce 7K and 10K freq)
 

 Audioquest Nighthawk Foobar2000 ---------------------- 156: -2.0 220: -2.0 311: -4.0 440: -2.0 622: -2.0 880: +2.0 1200: +2.0 1800: -2.0 2500: +2.0 3500: +2.0 5000: +2.0 7000: +2.0 10000: +4.0

 
After trying these EQ settings the stock headphone sounds muddy for sure!

 

[Soundizer]

I must be the odd one out. I tried similar EQ settings as Dale and also my own which were more subtle. After allot of listening I unusually come to the conclusion that they sound best to me without EQ.

Fantastic Headphones.

Using my Chord Mojo to drive them and EQ was via iTunes.

 

[Soundizer]

May I ask Does Audioquest recommend Burn In?
I saw a YouTube review stating that "Audioquest recommend burn in", but checked the website and packaging without any confirmation found.

Currently the Shop versions which I listened to for 90minutes, still sound better than my New Nighthawks.

 

[Joeybgood]

May I ask Does Audioquest recommend Burn In?
I saw a YouTube review stating that "Audioquest recommend burn in", but checked the website and packaging without any confirmation found.

Currently the Shop versions which I listened to for 90minutes, still sound better than my New Nighthawks.

150-200 hrs will do wonders for them.