[leomitch]

  Easy to put down someone on the internet? Like you just did Leo!
 
Dale said the things about the Shure 940 VS HD800; I did not invent that, nor put words in his mouth. That opinion of his can be scrutinized by others, and he can be called out on it. I think that it is bad opinion, so I say so. His past reviews make me skeptical about his judgment. That is a right I have and can clearly communicate to other people.

True enough and I apologize. You do have a right to your own opinion as do I. Carry on mate!  My bad!
 
Leo

 

[Solduios]

  Easy to put down someone on the internet? Like you just did Leo!
 
Dale said the things about the Shure 940 VS HD800; I did not invent that, nor put words in his mouth. That opinion of his can be scrutinized by others, and he can be called out on it. I think that it is bad opinion, so I say so. His past reviews make me skeptical about his judgment. That is a right I have and can clearly communicate to other people.

You do realize sound is subjective right? It also all depends on the gear driving, the persons head/ear shape and more. Someone might like a $15.00 Sony walkman headphone over a $500 set of hifi headphones. I think the key word in your sentence is opinion ... we should take all reviews with some grains of salt. Buying a headphone can still be a crap shoot even after reviews and research. If you don't like it resale it and try again. 
 
Lets just try to keep things civil 

 

 

[Mediahound]

In Dale Thorn's Youtube review of these headphones he explains what he had to do in order to EQ them to get them to sound acceptable. Then, in the very same video he says he highly recommends the headphones. So yeah, take what he says with a grain of salt!

 

[leomitch]

I think you misunderstood. I believe he was taking about minor adjustments he made to add to the already high quality of the sound. Kind of what I used to do reloading my .243 Winchester shells  for accuracy of the highest order...a grain or two less of acertain gunpowser to make the quarter inch group tighten up a little smaller. The quarter inch group at 100 yards was outstanding, but minor adjustments got even better results. Too complicated maybe, but perhaps you get my drift.
Did you read his written review yet. I think he is quite clear about his high regard for these headphones with and without the adjustments you refer to.
Anyway, Dale Thorn doesn't need me as an apologist for his work over the years. Perhaps he will drop by and speak for himself as I am finished talking for him.
You have a right to your opinion as do I. I misspoke earlier and have apologized. I have no wish to get into a debate over an opinion. Let's lleave it at that!
 
Leo

 

[Mediahound]

  I think you misunderstood. I believe he was taking about minor adjustments he made to add to the already high quality of the sound. Kind of what I used to do reloading my .243 Winchester shells  for accuracy of the highest order...a grain or two less of acertain gunpowser to make the quarter inch group tighten up a little smaller. The quarter inch group at 100 yards was outstanding, but minor adjustments got even better results. Too complicated maybe, but perhaps you get my drift.
Did you read his written review yet. I think he is quite clear about his high regard for these headphones with and without the adjustments you refer to.
Anyway, Dale Thorn doesn't need me as an apologist for his work over the years. Perhaps he will drop by and speak for himself as I am finished talking for him.
You have a right to your opinion as do I. I misspoke earlier and have apologized. I have no wish to get into a debate over an oipion. Let's lleave it at that!
 
Leo

 
Im not sure what I might be misunderstanding about his video. He states that he had to, and recommends, making EQ adjustments in order to be happy with them.
 
Quoted: 
"I highly recommend that if a person is interested in this, that they make whatever adjustments necessary in order to be happy with them"
 
It seems abundantly clear that he was not happy with them until he made EQ adjustments, as stated more than once in his video.

 

[Venere 2]

I have read every review I could find with Google, as well as both threads dedicated to the AQ Nighthawk. Most people are not thrilled with these headphones. What strikes me is that the complaints are very consistent. Too thick sound, muddled, boomy, not enough treble. These descriptions have come up often.
 
It's not like a bunch of carnival barkers and knuckle draggers just attacked a product by saying it's crap, or something like that. The many different users of the headphones are very consistent in describing these shortcomings. Even Dale, who supposedly loves the Nighthawk, used an equalizer with it. 
 
I wanted to love the Nighthawk. It is the most beautiful headphone to my eyes. It is very comfortable. But the sound… I can't believe Audioquest sunk 2 plus years of research and development money to develop this! And now some people are reporting that there Nighthawks stink! A smelly headphone. That would be an industry first. 
 
It sounds like they rushed this product to market. The smell apparently comes from the varnish. If that is true, it means the phones were put into their cases without sufficient drying time. The sound might be off because the phones needed more tuning. Maybe AQ wanted to get them to dealers quickly and rushed them a little too much. 

 

[White Lotus]

I would recommend listening to the headphones. Reviews are just a guide. 
 
There is no substitute for an audition! 

 

[Shembot]

  I have read every review I could find with Google, as well as both threads dedicated to the AQ Nighthawk. Most people are not thrilled with these headphones. What strikes me is that the complaints are very consistent. Too thick sound, muddled, boomy, not enough treble. These descriptions have come up often.
 
It's not like a bunch of carnival barkers and knuckle draggers just attacked a product by saying it's crap, or something like that. The many different users of the headphones are very consistent in describing these shortcomings. Even Dale, who supposedly loves the Nighthawk, used an equalizer with it. 
 
I wanted to love the Nighthawk. It is the most beautiful headphone to my eyes. It is very comfortable. But the sound… I can't believe Audioquest sunk 2 plus years of research and development money to develop this! And now some people are reporting that there Nighthawks stink! A smelly headphone. That would be an industry first. 
 
It sounds like they rushed this product to market. The smell apparently comes from the varnish. If that is true, it means the phones were put into their cases without sufficient drying time. The sound might be off because the phones needed more tuning. Maybe AQ wanted to get them to dealers quickly and rushed them a little too much. 

 
Hmm, I sense some jumping to conclusions here. I've read everything you've read about the NightHawk after many hours of Googling. Then I went to my local HiFi store and listened to them. Some of the general impressions that people have posted were indeed characteristics of the sound, but the overall sound signature impressed me enough that I purchased them to start a "bedroom rig," even though I had absolutely no plans to buy new headphones or to start such a rig. Yes, they're dark, and the low end could be tighter. But I find the imaging and soundstage to be above average for this price point, and some music that I listen to sounds better through the NightHawk than any other headphone I have (including the LCD-X). They're also the least fatiguing listening experience I've had from headphones, bar none, both in sound and in comfort, which is why I thought they'd be perfect for the bedroom.
 
Many, if not most, of the reviews available so far in the community have been on pre-production units at noisy shows and compared next to other new and pre-production headphones. Someone I know whose ears are much like mine was not a fan of them at CanJam. I was very surprised to be plunking down my credit card after listening to them for 1.5 hours in my shop's environment.
 
I tend not to like overly dark headphones, but there was something captivating about the Nighthawk. They're very resolving in spite of their darkness; they're relaxed, and they're fun. Obviously they won't be for everyone, but I do recommend trying them out if you get a chance.
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but my NightHawks don't smell very strongly. They have a light scent of "new headphones." If I put my nose right against different parts of the headphone, the scent that I think people are talking about seems to be coming from the ear cup padding -- perhaps it's a treatment they are using on the protein leather. I don't think it's coming from the varnish on the wood. It's probably a bit too much of a reach at this point to assume from the "new headphone scent" that the headphones were put into cases before they were dry or that AQ rushed them.

 

[leomitch]

  I would recommend listening to the headphones. Reviews are just a guide. 
 
There is no substitute for an audition! 

That is the truth and the longer the audition the better.
I am so happy with my Nighthawks I will sing their praises to the heavens. No mud or boominess here, just  beautiful music. Again though it has become trite to say so, I feel like I gained a whole new library of music. These ear goggles have changed my listening habits: I listen longer; I enjoy my music more; I am aware of sections of my music now that escaped my attention before. Right now I am listening to Georgia by a quartet playing on the Net and the quality of the bass plus the detail and purity of the music makes the hair stand up on the nape of my neck. Never happened much before! Mind you some of this wonderfulness may have a lot to do with my LHL Plus X Infinity DAC. Pretty hard to say how the headphones will sound on another device, but I am pretty sure they will do well almost with any fine DAC,
To akk who have a pair of these, I hope you are enjoying them as much as I. I am one happy fellow!

 

[JMCIII]

I've only had my pair for a couple of days, but one thing I've found real early on - these headphone (to my ears!!!) seem VERY headphone amp dependent. I tried them with my Parasound Zdac V.2 and while the sound was nice and unoffensive, it didn't really grab me. But switching over to my Original Electronics Master headphone amp things really opened up and I dug the sound. I still have to try them with my Dragonfly, so I'll let you know how that turns out. Right now they are on 24/7 burn in (though I will still listen to them as they burn in as I just can't wait - greedy audiophile that I am.....)

 

[White Lotus]

These headphones will definitely be "fussy" with sources, as their impedance is very (unusually) low.
 
You would need an amp with a very low output impedance. 

 

[Luckbad]

These sound great from an ODAC+Objective2 and the Sound Blaster ZxR. I don't know where people are coming from when they say they're dark. I've heard dark, and the Nighthawks aren't dark. They have a bit of a wooly sound on a few songs, but are extremely clear on most. I enjoy jazz with these headphones more than any other.

The treble is just shy of harsh to my ears. I'm sensitive to treble, and the Nighthawk just barely pushes below the edge at which I'd experience fatigue. It's pretty awesome.

Note that I have nothing invested in these. I have a review unit that has to go back home eventually, so I'm not trying to defend my own purchase or anything.

I'm looking forward to hearing the final sound after burn-in. Right now, they sound amazing with some music and fine with other music.

 

[SkylarGray]

 
@SkylarGray I'm the proud new owner of this very unique headphone, which I bought on the spot after listening to it through a Sony HAP-S1 and Bryston BHA-1, which I thought was a very synergistic setup. Now that I've had it at home (and burned it in for probably 100 hours now), I'm listening through a DragonFly 1.2, and I'm not sure I dig the pairing honestly. While of course we're talking about very different price points in source and amp gear, I was very surprised that I didn't find the NightHawk and DragonFly to mesh particularly well, considering the latter is AQ's only DAC offering. I find the combo to be rather muddy and veiled sounding compared to what I heard at the store, which was a dark signature but very clear and resolving. I know the literature recommends using the NightHawk and DragonFly together, but I was wondering what you think about this combination from your experience and what one can realistically expect.
 
I've also tried the NightHawk with my Wyrd/Modi2Uber/Magni2Uber stack at work, which I liked better than the DragonFly by far, though again not nearly as much as I liked the setup at the store where I bought the NightHawk. I'm still working on getting a balanced cable so I can try it with my Wyrd/Gungnir/Mjolnir stack, which should be more like the store's setup and which I think will pair nicely given that the Mjolnir is an aggressive neutral amp with a lean and clean low-end.

This seems odd to me since NightHawk should pair exceptionally well with DragonFly. Afterall, during development, DF was used quite frequently. One major objective of NH was to design away source-dependent anomalies in the headphones' performance such as changes to frequency response and distortion profile from amp to amp. In other words, I wanted NightHawk to be compatible with a wide range of devices and its performance unaltered from device to device.
NightHawk has an ultra-flat impedance curve (pretty much unheard-of for a dynamic headphone) and one of the lowest distortion profiles of any headphone every made to my knowledge. If you are hearing large differences between DACs/amps, this could have more to do with differences between the DACs/amps themselves.
 

  I've only had my pair for a couple of days, but one thing I've found real early on - these headphone (to my ears!!!) seem VERY headphone amp dependent. I tried them with my Parasound Zdac V.2 and while the sound was nice and unoffensive, it didn't really grab me. But switching over to my Original Electronics Master headphone amp things really opened up and I dug the sound. I still have to try them with my Dragonfly, so I'll let you know how that turns out. Right now they are on 24/7 burn in (though I will still listen to them as they burn in as I just can't wait - greedy audiophile that I am.....)

 

  These headphones will definitely be "fussy" with sources, as their impedance is very (unusually) low.
 
You would need an amp with a very low output impedance. 

NightHawk should actually be much less picky about sources than the vast majority of headphones, since it has a nearly ruler-flat impedance curve. And since its damping is mechanically dominated, it does not necessarily need a low output impedance.
 

 

[White Lotus]

Oh my, that's impressive. A flat impedance curve is planar territory. 
 
How did you achieve such a thing? 

 

[Shembot]

  This seems odd to me since NightHawk should pair exceptionally well with DragonFly. Afterall, during development, DF was used quite frequently. One major objective of NH was to design away source-dependent anomalies in the headphones' performance such as changes to frequency response and distortion profile from amp to amp. In other words, I wanted NightHawk to be compatible with a wide range of devices and its performance unaltered from device to device.
NightHawk has an ultra-flat impedance curve (pretty much unheard-of for a dynamic headphone) and one of the lowest distortion profiles of any headphone every made to my knowledge. If you are hearing large differences between DACs/amps, this could have more to do with differences between the DACs/amps themselves.
 
 
NightHawk should actually be much less picky about sources than the vast majority of headphones, since it has a nearly ruler-flat impedance curve. And since its damping is mechanically dominated, it does not necessarily need a low output impedance. 
 

Skylar, thank you very much for the detailed response, I appreciate it. I've spent a good amount of time listening to 3 of my current headphones with different sound signatures today -- my LCD-X on my Wyrd/Gungnir/Mjolnir, my EL-8C on my  Wyrd/Modi2Uber/Magni2Uber, and now the NightHawk with the DragonFly 1.2. Though I've run the Nighthawk with a lot of pink noise (I'm not too careful in tracking the exact number of hours), I think it's still evolving. It definitely sounds better to me right now than it did even just yesterday (I left it overnight playing my burn-in playlist). I think I'll give the headphone and cable more time to evolve before I make any definitive judgments about the sound. 
 
I actually have the DragonFly plugged into my Wyrd right now, which probably helps, too. If you guys would finally ship my dealer's box of JitterBugs, then I'd have one to use with the DragonFly instead.  
 
I'm also still awaiting an adapter that will let me use my balanced cables with it so that I can try it with Mjolnir, which I think will be an interesting test. Overall, I am very happy with the headphones, though. Their sound signature is different from any headphone I've ever owned, so they have a unique place in my collection.