[Kammerat Rebekka]

Looking forward to hearing this seemingly highly divisive can. I actually came to it via the Ollos (s4 and s4r naked version) as frequency response almost look identical.
At the moment the Ollos are my favourit dynamic can by quite a margin...but I miss bigger cups. The NH should preferably provide that.

A bit funny seeing as I used to frolick around in rather bright headphones really digging the likes of K701, Q701, HD700/800 and so forth, yet nowadays my stash consists of r70x, k7xx, Ollos, he500, hd580 precision, hfi-15g as well as the kns8400. The only ones there with a bit of shimmers on top are the hd580 and the kns8400.

 

[xRaptorxPunisher]

Hi, I got a brand new Nighthawks a couple of days ago and they are in the process of break in right now. Out of the box, they sound very, very promising. There is one thing I do not understand. According to a lot of reviews, people find them dark, even too dark. I strongly disagree! They are certainly source dependent, but with good, even average recordings I can hear plenty of details in highs. There is not anything missing. Just to add - I am a 55 five year old music lover and my hearing is slowly but surely deteriorating. Still, no problems with highs that Nighthawks produce!. Not to forget, soft, deep bass and addictive mids. I expect a lot from them, very happy with my purchase!

Just because a headphone is dark doesn’t mean they lack detail. Darkness is the tilt of the FR. The nighthawks are not dark in the sense they have a downward tilt but their mid bass is so elevated that they sound dark.

I find the Nighthawk driver quite capable. I feel the design of the housing needed improving as the cup reverb and style of the grills makes them sound narrow. I enjoy their bass quite a bit and a bass that clean is hard to find in a dynamic driver. The mids are their biggest let down in my opinion.

 

[bobo64]

Just because a headphone is dark doesn’t mean they lack detail. Darkness is the tilt of the FR. The nighthawks are not dark in the sense they have a downward tilt but their mid bass is so elevated that they sound dark.

I find the Nighthawk driver quite capable. I feel the design of the housing needed improving as the cup reverb and style of the grills makes them sound narrow. I enjoy their bass quite a bit and a bass that clean is hard to find in a dynamic driver. The mids are their biggest let down in my opinion.[/QUOTE

Just because a headphone is dark doesn’t mean they lack detail. Darkness is the tilt of the FR. The nighthawks are not dark in the sense they have a downward tilt but their mid bass is so elevated that they sound dark.

I find the Nighthawk driver quite capable. I feel the design of the housing needed improving as the cup reverb and style of the grills makes them sound narrow. I enjoy their bass quite a bit and a bass that clean is hard to find in a dynamic driver. The mids are their biggest let down in my opinion.

Meze 99 Classics, that I own, have elevated mid bass too, but nobody calls them 'dark'.So, being dark has got to do something with high frequences (obviously), not with mid bass.

 

[mbwilson111]

According to a lot of reviews, people find them dark, even too dark.

I have had my original NH for over two years and have never understood why they are called dark.

no problems with highs that Nighthawks produce!. Not to forget, soft, deep bass and addictive mids

That is what I hear.

 

[Fasterball]

I have had my original NH for over two years and have never understood why they are called dark.



That is what I hear.

I think they are called dark because the trend for many headphones today is for them to be overly or borderline overly bright. These do a great job with the low end but they don't sparkle (as they say) on the hi end. Thus because they are not bright many reviewers call them dark. I prefer the term "accurate".

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

The lingo is a tricky thing. I’ve heard of a game in the US that almost exclusively is played with hands yet for some reason is called football.
The hd600 is just about The darkest piece of chocolate you could ever sink your teeth into..if you’ve spent the last decade with the k701.

 

[XleugimX]

Just because a headphone is dark doesn’t mean they lack detail. Darkness is the tilt of the FR. The nighthawks are not dark in the sense they have a downward tilt but their mid bass is so elevated that they sound dark.

I find the Nighthawk driver quite capable. I feel the design of the housing needed improving as the cup reverb and style of the grills makes them sound narrow. I enjoy their bass quite a bit and a bass that clean is hard to find in a dynamic driver. The mids are their biggest let down in my opinion.

I think it is very dependant on the gear you use. With my Nighthawk I use a Cayin N3 and a Questyle CMA400i and the character is very different. With the Cayin the sound is dark and intimate but with the CMA400i the sound seems to open !!. With this DAC the soundstage is still narrower than others (Hifiman Sundara, for instance) but the sound becomes "holographic" with plenty of micro details... voices are crystalline and natural.... for sure is a addictive. An this performace is using single-ended stock cable + Qed performance extender !!. I'll go for a XLR-balanced cable soon, eagering to see how it scales.

 

[volly]

@bobo64 - Welcome brother!

They're pretty neat aren't they?! Glad you're enjoying them!

 

[bobo64]

@bobo64 - Welcome brother!

They're pretty neat aren't they?! Glad you're enjoying them!

Much more than I thought I would. Cheers!

 

[bobo64]

The lingo is a tricky thing. I’ve heard of a game in the US that almost exclusively is played with hands yet for some reason is called football.
The hd600 is just about The darkest piece of chocolate you could ever sink your teeth into..if you’ve spent the last decade with the k701.

You're right! If you came down from Beyers or AKGs, almost anything you put on your head will sound dark.

 

[LostnAmerica]

I have had my original NH for over two years and have never understood why they are called dark.



That is what I hear.

Greetings bobo64, I am looking at buying a pair of the original nighthawks (used of course). Are there notable differences/concerns between the originals and the carbons? Appreciate any info you may render.

Cheers,

 

[LostnAmerica]

You're right! If you came down from Beyers or AKGs, almost anything you put on your head will sound dark.

My apologies on the previous psot/reply: Greetings bobo64, I am looking at buying a pair of the original nighthawks (used of course). Are there notable differences/concerns between the originals and the carbons? Appreciate any info you may render.

Cheers,

 

[CaptainFantastic]

@LostnAmerica ...just so you know, it's also possible to get new units of the original Nighthawk here and there. There is one available on amazon.de right now.

 

[wordfool]

Meze 99 Classics, that I own, have elevated mid bass too, but nobody calls them 'dark'.So, being dark has got to do something with high frequences (obviously), not with mid bass.

I found the Mezes unbearably shouty when I auditioned them a few years back, so definitely strong upper mids and definitely not dark. The Nighthawks have a slightly elevated, but not peaky, bass, and relatively subdued (but accurate) mids and upper frequencies, with just enough sparkle up top to provide some light in the darkness. It's the laid back mids/upper mids in particular that earns them the "dark" moniker IMO

 

[wordfool]

Greetings bobo64, I am looking at buying a pair of the original nighthawks (used of course). Are there notable differences/concerns between the originals and the carbons? Appreciate any info you may render.

From what I've read there's no difference in terms of engineering/tuning. The Carbons IMO look better and they also come with two sets of pads -- smooth pleather and hybrid/suede (which I prefer). Cable might also be different, but I'm not sure. I am pretty sure the original's cable can't be any worse than the Carbon's, which is a horrible rubbery thing