AudioQuest NightHawk Impressions and Discussion Thread

[Mink]

Funny how everyone hears things differently. I think these headphones shine especially with classical music, not that much in the detail departement, but in a coherent/organic lush soundscape. The last time I have been to a concert (Amsterdam Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra) I heard a similar tonality: very warm, lots of bass, much darker than the recipe the usual head-fi audiophile describes for classcal music headphones: bright, extended highs, extremely detailed and with a huge soundstage.

Lean and grainy mids? Honestly, the Hawks and Owls are the only pairs of headphones I own and have heard that lack any kind of grain. Sorry, but I am pretty flabbergasted

 

[funkle II]

I sometimes found putting more power into the Hawks isn't always beneficial.

They actually sound pretty good with the AQ dragonfly Black

Funny how everyone hears things differently. I think these headphones shine especially with classical music, not that much in the detail departement, but in a coherent/organic lush soundscape. The last time I have been to a concert (Amsterdam Royal Concertgebouw orchestra) I heard a similar tonality: very warm, lots of bass, much darker than the recipe the usual head-fi audiophile descripes for classcal music headphones: bright, extended highs, extremely detailed and with a huge soundstgage.

Lean and grainy mids? Honestly, the Hawks and Owls are the only pairs of headphones I own and have heard that lack any kind of grain. Sorry, but I am pretty flabbergasted

For me, it's more about the frequency range than the genre. They sound the best with recordings having more instruments with content at the frequency extremes, vs. more mid-heavy solo or small ensembles. So if by "classical" we mean orchestral, then yes, but chamber or solo piano doesn't sound great to me.

 

[kman1211]

Funny how everyone hears things differently. I think these headphones shine especially with classical music, not that much in the detail departement, but in a coherent/organic lush soundscape. The last time I have been to a concert (Amsterdam Royal Concertgebouw orchestra) I heard a similar tonality: very warm, lots of bass, much darker than the recipe the usual head-fi audiophile descripes for classcal music headphones: bright, extended highs, extremely detailed and with a huge soundstgage.

Lean and grainy mids? Honestly, the Hawks and Owls are the only pairs of headphones I own and have heard that lack any kind of grain. Sorry, but I am pretty flabbergasted

Maybe it's the amps I used with the Hawks, I do need to try the pleathers at length on the hawks, with the microsueds I do find I don't like classical at all with them. or maybe I'm simply spoiled by my DT 480 which has this eerie physical presence to it and a more coherent, solid, full-bodied, and holographic sound to it that sends shivers down my spine and the DT 480 isn't brighter than the Hawks. I don't like bright headphones as I find they often hurt the experience for me.

I do agree, I don't find the Hawks grainy nor lean in the mids. A bit uneven but not lean or grainy. Also part of that may have to do with people having different interpretations of what 'grain' is. To me it's more like rough film like effect on the sound, coming off as an actually rough almost sandpaper type effect or like TV fuzz and the Hawks don't have that at all.

 

[dakanao]

Maybe it's the amps I used with the Hawks, I do need to try the pleathers at length on the hawks, with the microsueds I do find I don't like classical at all with them. or maybe I'm simply spoiled by my DT 480 which has this eerie physical presence to it and a more coherent, solid, full-bodied, and holographic sound to it that sends shivers down my spine and the DT 480 isn't brighter than the Hawks. I hate bright and lean headphones, I found they sound all tonally wrong and ruin the experience.

I do agree, I don't find the Hawks grainy nor lean in the mids. A bit uneven but not lean or grainy. Also part of that may have to do with people having different interpretations of what 'grain' is. To me it's more like rough film like effect on the sound, coming off as an actually rough almost sandpaper type effect or like TV fuzz and the Hawks don't have that at all.

When I think of a headphone that is smooth in it's frequency response, yet interestingly grainy, the NAD Viso HP50 comes to mind

 

[Mink]

I listen a lot to baroque music and many so called HIP recordings are close miked, with violins that play without vibrato and when they draw high pitched long straight legato lines it can severely grate the ears. Most headphones get fatiguing after a while, yes especially the mythical HD650s that have a peak around 4k, same as my D5000s.
The Hawks and Owl keep the timbre and body of those violins in tact, but smoothen that glaring peak a bit out.
The lower mids and meaty bass add body and warmth to the sound. Even those early HIP recordings of the 80s and begin 90s sound decently warm and smooth. So far I can't see any fault in the Hawks and Owls, playing classical music.

 

[dakanao]

I listen a lot to baroque music and many so called HIP recordings are close miked, with violins that play without vibrato and when they draw high pitched long straight legato lines it can severely grate the ears. Most headphones get fatiguing after a while, yes especially the mythical HD650s that have a peak around 4k, same as my D5000s.
The Hawks and Owl keep the timbre and body of those violins in tact, but smoothen that glaring peak a bit out.
The lower mids and meaty bass add body and warmth to the sound. Even those early HIP recordings of the 80s and begin 90s sound decently warm and smooth. So far I can't see any fault in the Hawks and Owls, playing classical music.

The HD 650's ability to be fatiguing in the uppermids, has actually to do with how you fit them. The earpads need to be angled, it's only then that you get the actual sound of the HD 650, and to me became one of the most grain free headphones I've heard after the Beyerdynamic DT 250 - 250 ohm.

A Mogami copper cable also refines the uppermids a little bit

Otherwise, it sounds uppermid heavy with a very rolled off upper treble and weak rolled off bass.

 

[Mink]

Also part of that may have to do with people having different interpretations of what 'grain' is. To me it's more like rough film like effect on the sound, coming off as an actually rough almost sandpaper type effect or like TV fuzz and the Hawks don't have that at all.

That's my understanding of "grain" as well, some sort of resonating non-musical artefact

 

[Mink]

I do not like the Hawks on the Asgard 3

Maybe it's the amps I used with the Hawks

I use the humble Teac UD-301 DAC/Amp, but it is funny you mentioned the Asgard 3, I was looking at this amp as a possible upgrade, with the multibit DAC module.
But now I am hesitant to say the least. LOL

 

[kman1211]

That's my understanding of "grain" as well, some sort of resonating non-musical artefact

Yeah, sometimes it is caused by the system or poor matching, but it's something to do with the actual driver characteristic when referring to grain on an actual headphone. Sometimes grain is subtle but can rear it's head with more extended listening. But in terms of grain the Hawks is one of the least grainy headphones I've heard, cup reverb and uneveness isn't really grain imho. A big reason I like the Hawks and Beyers is due to just how little grain their drivers actually have. The HD 600/650 have always had a bit of grain to my ears regardless of system, I personally love their tuning but I always found their grain holds them back some for me and is why I get low level fatigue when listening to the Senns for a long period of time, whereas the Hawks my ears relax with extended listening and is why I appreciate the Hawks the most with extended listening sessions.

I use the humble Teac UD-301 DAC/Amp, but it is funny you mentioned the Asgard 3, I was looking at this amp as a possible upgrade, with the multibit DAC module.
But now I am hesitant to say the least. LOL

Something about the Asgard 3 Multibit with the Hawks just doesn't sit right with me, it does sound smoother on it, but seems to lose some of it's charm, but I'll try the pleather pads and see if that fixes it on the Asgard 3 to me, I'm beginning to think the problem may be the microsuede pads. I also don't like the HD 6XX that much on it but for a different reason, like the Hawks it prefers the UDA-1. The T1.2 is the headphone I like the most on the Asgard 3.

 

[xRaptorxPunisher]

The upper mids on the Nighthawks are completely sucked out. The measurements are pretty clear on this too. What a lot of measurements don't show is the cup reverb which is pretty mad on these. I don't mind some cup play, in-fact I enioy it but the mid bass and cramped nature make it a bad choice. I don't find anything smooth it's a very bumpy headphone. Look at how the lower mids get swamped, the a huge dip but rises with multiple peaks. I'm sorry but that isn't a smooth headphone. The HD650 is very smooth in the treble, it does have a 5k ring which isn't pleasent but apart from that it's a way smoother headphone than the Nighthawk.

 

[dakanao]

The upper mids on the Nighthawks are completely sucked out. The measurements are pretty clear on this too. What a lot of measurements don't show is the cup reverb which is pretty mad on these. I don't mind some cup play, in-fact I enioy it but the mid bass and cramped nature make it a bad choice. I don't find anything smooth it's a very bumpy headphone. Look at how the lower mids get swamped, the a huge dip but rises with multiple peaks. I'm sorry but that isn't a smooth headphone. The HD650 is very smooth in the treble, it does have a 5k ring which isn't pleasent but apart from that it's a way smoother headphone than the Nighthawk.

Do the pre 2014 HD 650s also have that 5k ring?

 

[kman1211]

The upper mids on the Nighthawks are completely sucked out. The measurements are pretty clear on this too. What a lot of measurements don't show is the cup reverb which is pretty mad on these. I don't mind some cup play, in-fact I enioy it but the mid bass and cramped nature make it a bad choice. I don't find anything smooth it's a very bumpy headphone. Look at how the lower mids get swamped, the a huge dip but rises with multiple peaks. I'm sorry but that isn't a smooth headphone. The HD650 is very smooth in the treble, it does have a 5k ring which isn't pleasent but apart from that it's a way smoother headphone than the Nighthawk.

The Nighthawk isn't the smoothest headphone I do agree, but it's very non-fatiguing to me due to it's lack of grain and distortion. But I also don't find it that uneven.The HD 650 is smoother and seems to scale up better but I don't like the low level grain it has, it's my most fatiguing headphone for long-term sessions, it only seems less fatiguing at first due to it's smoothness, but as the hours wear on, I grow quite fatigued with the Senns. To my ears what I personally refer to as 'grain' is the single biggest cause of fatigue, not uneven FR response, reverb, etc. As someone who often listens to hours on end, it's the subtle things that cause the most problems.

The thing is the HD 650 and Nighthawk are completely different headphones with different sound goals and targets. They just get compared due to both largely being regarded as darker headphones.

 

[Brubaker]

The upper mids on the Nighthawks are completely sucked out. The measurements are pretty clear on this too. What a lot of measurements don't show is the cup reverb which is pretty mad on these. I don't mind some cup play, in-fact I enioy it but the mid bass and cramped nature make it a bad choice. I don't find anything smooth it's a very bumpy headphone. Look at how the lower mids get swamped, the a huge dip but rises with multiple peaks. I'm sorry but that isn't a smooth headphone. The HD650 is very smooth in the treble, it does have a 5k ring which isn't pleasent but apart from that it's a way smoother headphone than the Nighthawk.

Interestingly, Skylar Grey said early on, his analysis showed no sign of cup reverb and that the Nighthawks would change very little sonically with different amps, yet everyone went on to say the exact opposite.

 

[xRaptorxPunisher]

Interestingly, Skylar Grey said early on, his analysis showed no sign of cup reverb and that the Nighthawks would change very little sonically with different amps, yet everyone went on to say the exact opposite.

Marketing, Audioquest are fantastic at it. Where is he now

 

[xRaptorxPunisher]

The Nighthawk isn't the smoothest headphone I do agree, but it's very non-fatiguing to me due to it's lack of grain and distortion. But I also don't find it that uneven.The HD 650 is smoother and seems to scale up better but I don't like the low level grain it has, it's my most fatiguing headphone for long-term sessions, it only seems less fatiguing at first due to it's smoothness, but as the hours wear on, I grow quite fatigued with the Senns. To my ears what I personally refer to as 'grain' is the single biggest cause of fatigue, not uneven FR response, reverb, etc. As someone who often listens to hours on end, it's the subtle things that cause the most problems.

The thing is the HD 650 and Nighthawk are completely different headphones with different sound goals and targets. They just get compared due to both largely being regarded as darker headphones.

Newer HD650's I absolutely agree with you. I'm a big fan of the pre black box HD650's because they were gorgeous sounding. I tend to prefer the sound of larger driver planars however.