[CountryBoy]

  hachiko here are innerfidelity measurements of the NH and audeze
 
NH - http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioQuestNightHawk2015.pdf
 
LCD 2 - http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2.pdf
 
as you can see lcd 2 has upper mids that seat one step back similar to the NH, and the bass of NH is flat from 10 hz to 300 hz

Looking at the frequency response curve, you can see that the Nighthawk has what looks like a 7 or 8 dB drop from 300 hz to 1000 hz - but that is really almost the only defect I see in the AQ's page of measurements - the THD+N measurements in particular below 400 hz are probably the best Tyll has ever measured. But thanks for pointing out the LCD-2 measurements - they are impressive in all respects and better than I've seen for other planar magnetics and flagships - I will definitely be adding them to my must-audition list.

 

[inthere]

 

 ​

Various tubes mainly 12AU7 Mullard. Has more detailed, clean mids than other tubes. The Ember seems to tighten the bass up for me. The Ember can be very lush so it does depend on the tube I suppose. I personally find the high power of the Ember helps the Nighthawks bass.

Mullard tubes tend to be very lush for me so I'm not sure that's the best match for the NH, I believe i use a 12AU7 Mullard in my Earmax Pro tube amp but i'll have to check, haven't used it in awhile.

 

[knowhatimean]

Yesterday I compared the Nighthawk to the LCD-2 2013.

I wanted to compare the bass mainly but ended up switching between them for a while.

I started with the Audeze. Bass went down to 20hz no problem. Bass was more textured, more defined. NH was extended but I didn't think it went down to 20hz. The mid bass of the NH is very overtaking. I thought the NH had more of a for show bass where as the LCD had a more accurate bass. If the song had impact, you'd get impact. The NH always had exaggerated bass. I found the NH really good for rap and EDM where the LCD was more of an all around headphone when it comes to lows.

Both have their purpose I liked them both but for different reasons.

The mids are totally opposite. Like the HD650 the LCD-2 has linear mids with warmness to voices that feels engaging. I can hear more into the singers voice, more detail. The Nighthawks mids are difficult. The lower mids have some weight more the uppers are recessed so voices sound like they are more distant. I can't hear the texture of s voice very well and I can't really enjoy the song if it's vocal centric. I personally can't understand how anyone can enjoy it for vocal.

The treble went to the NH. It was more extended, not as well controlled as the LCD-2 but I felt the NH gave more treble information. Air is about the same, both are stuffy. Soundstage depth Audeze, width probably similar. Imaging Audeze hands down. NH image decent though considering it's sound.

I felt the LCD-2 was a more musical headphone the Nighthawk is too congested to be musical for me. If some consider big bass to be musical then that's different but for me I need to hear everything for it to be musical.

I also compared the NH to the Z7. I didn't like the Z7 at all, it was harsh sounding and had a bass roll off that was too obvious. They have a similar curve but the Nighthawk did everything better than the Z7.

You do of course realize that any aural impressions you've given of any headphone are absolutely pointless without any mention of what music you listened to.

The truth is there is a lot more "flawed" recordings (whole. Musical Genres,in some cases) than there is "flawed" headphones. I mean if you happen to like how this particular music may sound to you, but it becomes more a matter of picking equipment that fits the recorded sound the way you like to hear it .

& when you compare on headphone's response against how another handles a certain frequency area, it may be one is only reproducing the overblown or weak areas of the recorded sound more honestly than the other. It becomes a matter of how "you" like things to sound. It's actually pretty funny how hundreds upon hundreds of people post this same type of posting incorrectly taking these important variables for granted.

 

[crafft]

After some serious listening I decided to not keep the NH.
 
They do several things beautifully (for example the drum solo on Nardis from the Cafe Blue album by Patricia Barber).
With some recordings it's a true step up from my other headphones. (they are a bit boomy to me but can be cured with eq)
 
My personal problem with these cans lies with the timbre and tone of classical guitar. I play this instrument myself and therefor it's very important to me for a headphone to sound right with this.
 
My HD600 and HD650, DT880 and Focal Spirit Po really make the sound of the guitar in beneath video shine. The NH couldn't and I regret this cause it's otherwise a very nice headphone.
 
I wonder if people owning the NH and some of the other cans I own agree with me......
 
finding "your" guitar with great tone is as difficult as finding "your" headphones
 
 

 

[inthere]

  After some serious listening I decided to not keep the NH.
 
They do several things beautifully (for example the drum solo on Nardis from the Cafe Blue album by Patricia Barber).
With some recordings it's a true step up from my other headphones. (they are a bit boomy to me but can be cured with eq)
 
My personal problem with these cans lies with the timbre and tone of classical guitar. I play this instrument myself and therefor it's very important to me for a headphone to sound right with this.
 
My HD600 and HD650, DT880 and Focal Spirit Po really make the sound of the guitar in beneath video shine. The NH couldn't and I regret this cause it's otherwise a very nice headphone.
 
I wonder if people owning the NH and some of the other cans I own agree with me......
 
finding "your" guitar with great tone is as difficult as finding "your" headphones
 

How many hours of burn in?

 

[greggf]

I'm doing what you're doing.  After careful listening, I'm giving up on the Nighthawks.  They'll sound great on certain recordings, and then sound totally under water on others.  I understand your complaint about the NH guitar sound.  My complaint is its piano sound.  On solo piano, it's . . . dark dark, dark, and it's boxy-sounding, like all those RVG Blue Notes from the 1960's. 
 
My wife and I were very impressed by the NH at first, but then I played a Japanese JVC of Satie solo pianoworks and we were both shocked at its murkiness.  This is one of our best-sounding (and favorite!) recordings.  It sounds magnificent on our STAX gear.  It sounded great on speakers, especially our Quads.  Not so on the Nighthawks.
 
btw, I emailed Audioquest with a question about how to acquire balanced cables about a week ago.  Their form says that they'll respond, typically, within 24 hours.  Not a peep.  Not impressed.  Also not impressed that a cable company didn't have a balanced cable available right at the introduction.  Perhaps they had/have no confidence in the NH in the market?
 
I've seen an ad or article - Stereophile?  TAS? - which referred to both the semi-closed NH and the closed "Nightowl".  Just in the text.  Their marketing is way out in front of their introduction/engineering schedule.  Not impressed.
 
On the positive side, the NH is the only dynamic headphone whose treble doesn't pain me.  That's probably why it sounds submerged on good recordings.  It does make bad recordings more palatable, though.

 

[greggf]

I just read the burn-in question.  It was directed elsewhere, but I'll go with it, and with this:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/599924/breaking-in-headphones-the-final-verdict
 
I think that a listener really would "get used to" listening to Nighthawks over time.  Much, much time.  But, then, the average Lexus driver would get used to driving a 1962 Rambler Classic if that's all he drove for two months. 
 
It's disingenuous for AQ to suggest the problems with the NH are ones of burn-in and acclimatization.  The problem is the purposely funky engineering behind the hp, which was probably encouraged solely for marketing purposes.

 

[Loquah]

  I'm doing what you're doing.  After careful listening, I'm giving up on the Nighthawks.  They'll sound great on certain recordings, and then sound totally under water on others.  I understand your complaint about the NH guitar sound.  My complaint is its piano sound.  On solo piano, it's . . . dark dark, dark, and it's boxy-sounding, like all those RVG Blue Notes from the 1960's. 
 
My wife and I were very impressed by the NH at first, but then I played a Japanese JVC of Satie solo pianoworks and we were both shocked at its murkiness.  This is one of our best-sounding (and favorite!) recordings.  It sounds magnificent on our STAX gear.  It sounded great on speakers, especially our Quads.  Not so on the Nighthawks.
 
btw, I emailed Audioquest with a question about how to acquire balanced cables about a week ago.  Their form says that they'll respond, typically, within 24 hours.  Not a peep.  Not impressed.  Also not impressed that a cable company didn't have a balanced cable available right at the introduction.  Perhaps they had/have no confidence in the NH in the market?
 
I've seen an ad or article - Stereophile?  TAS? - which referred to both the semi-closed NH and the closed "Nightowl".  Just in the text.  Their marketing is way out in front of their introduction/engineering schedule.  Not impressed.
 
On the positive side, the NH is the only dynamic headphone whose treble doesn't pain me.  That's probably why it sounds submerged on good recordings.  It does make bad recordings more palatable, though.

 
 
There is no doubt that AQ had full confidence in the market with the NHs. I had lunch last week with one of their guys and we discussed balanced cables. Although I don't have (and couldn't share) specific details, I believe they are actually looking at a few cable options, not just a simple balanced version so you can imagine there would have been some R&D required. Very few companies would hold back a major product release for an add-on accessory development. The stock cable with the NHs is excellent and a balanced cable is a nice-to-have, not a necessity (for the record I am definitely getting one, so I am a definite supporter of balanced operation)
 
 

  I just read the burn-in question.  It was directed elsewhere, but I'll go with it, and with this:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/599924/breaking-in-headphones-the-final-verdict
 
I think that a listener really would "get used to" listening to Nighthawks over time.  Much, much time.  But, then, the average Lexus driver would get used to driving a 1962 Rambler Classic if that's all he drove for two months. 
 
It's disingenuous for AQ to suggest the problems with the NH are ones of burn-in and acclimatization.  The problem is the purposely funky engineering behind the hp, which was probably encouraged solely for marketing purposes.

 
AQ haven't suggested that there are problems with the NH that require burn-in / acclimatisation, they merely state that the NHs will sound their best after burn-in. I'm not always a believer in burn-in (I heard none from my Noble K10s, or HD800s, or various other cans), but I definitely noticed changes in the NHs over the first few hours of listening so who's to say there aren't subtle changes continuing after that?
 
Finally, on the question of certain recordings not sounding "right" with the NHs, do you know that those recordings are "right" to start with? I'm not suggesting that the NHs are perfect and therefore should be the sole point of reference, but I know I have had reference tracks in the past that new gear (DAC, amp, 'phones) has shown was actually synergistic with my previous gear and might not have actually been the best reference recording after all. Again, I'm not saying it's the case here, but just asking the question.

 

[piaudio]

I agreed when comparing Ether, you might consider Th-X00.

After some serious listening I decided to not keep the NH.

They do several things beautifully (for example the drum solo on Nardis from the Cafe Blue album by Patricia Barber).
With some recordings it's a true step up from my other headphones. (they are a bit boomy to me but can be cured with eq)

My personal problem with these cans lies with the timbre and tone of classical guitar. I play this instrument myself and therefor it's very important to me for a headphone to sound right with this.

My HD600 and HD650, DT880 and Focal Spirit Po really make the sound of the guitar in beneath video shine. The NH couldn't and I regret this cause it's otherwise a very nice headphone.

I wonder if people owning the NH and some of the other cans I own agree with me......

finding "your" guitar with great tone is as difficult as finding "your" headphones


 

 

[kman1211]

I'm doing what you're doing.  After careful listening, I'm giving up on the Nighthawks.  They'll sound great on certain recordings, and then sound totally under water on others.  I understand your complaint about the NH guitar sound.  My complaint is its piano sound.  On solo piano, it's . . . dark dark, dark, and it's boxy-sounding, like all those RVG Blue Notes from the 1960's. 

My wife and I were very impressed by the NH at first, but then I played a Japanese JVC of Satie solo pianoworks and we were both shocked at its murkiness.  This is one of our best-sounding (and favorite!) recordings.  It sounds magnificent on our STAX gear.  It sounded great on speakers, especially our Quads.  Not so on the Nighthawks.

btw, I emailed Audioquest with a question about how to acquire balanced cables about a week ago.  Their form says that they'll respond, typically, within 24 hours.  Not a peep.  Not impressed.  Also not impressed that a cable company didn't have a balanced cable available right at the introduction.  Perhaps they had/have no confidence in the NH in the market?

I've seen an ad or article - Stereophile?  TAS? - which referred to both the semi-closed NH and the closed "Nightowl".  Just in the text.  Their marketing is way out in front of their introduction/engineering schedule.  Not impressed.

On the positive side, the NH is the only dynamic headphone whose treble doesn't pain me.  That's probably why it sounds submerged on good recordings.  It does make bad recordings more palatable, though.

The Nighthawks definitely are dark, especially when I first got my pair. It really depends on what your tastes and preferences are with these. I naturally prefer dark headphones due to my sensitivity to higher frequencies(upper mids and treble) as they tend to have less presence, grain, and distortion in those regions. I understand dynamics and their treble though, most do bother me.

Something interesting seems to be happening with my pairs sound recently, they've brightened up quite a bit. I was finding on some systems they were sounding brighter than my K712(not a headphone I consider dark) and only slightly darker than it on others. It's likely related to pad wear.

 

[SearchOfSub]

Well, I just heard "We are free" from Gladiator OST and compared to HD650, details are buried. Care to try out the track on youtube for a/b if you have both cans just to get idea roughly.

 

[inthere]

The Nighthawks definitely are dark, especially when I first got my pair. It really depends on what your tastes and preferences are with these. I naturally prefer dark headphones due to my sensitivity to higher frequencies(upper mids and treble) as they tend to have less presence, grain, and distortion in those regions. I understand dynamics and their treble though, most do bother me.

Something interesting seems to be happening with my pairs sound recently, they've brightened up quite a bit. I was finding on some systems they were sounding brighter than my K712(not a headphone I consider dark) and only slightly darker than it on others. It's likely related to pad wear.

 
 Pretty much the same with me. I'm having a tough time with my Ether C's and will need quite a long amount of time for brain burn in, because the highs/high mids are very fatiguing and the lows just don't have enough weight for me. They are great for travel because the leakage is very low. I just did a 10 hour flight to Istanbul and the little old lady next to me wanted a pair because she couldn't hear anything. Of course that was before I told her the price.
 
Overall though, the Nighthawk is still my favorite by a pretty wide margin in every department except leakage, which is affecting their portability in my case. 

 

[SearchOfSub]

Well, I just heard "We are free" from Gladiator OST and compared to HD650, details are buried. Care to try out the track on youtube for a/b if you have both cans just to get idea roughly.

On the other hand, X-Men OST "Hope" sound better on NH.

In fact this track is just made for the NH. Sounds real good through NH.

 

[Hachiko270296]

The Nighthawk has been scaling a bit on better gear, it's still the same signature tonight but there's some separation improvements. The mids still have hay boxy feeing though, that's due to the semi closed design plus the tuning.

The HD650, this thing is a beast. It just keeps improving. It straight out beat the Mrspeakers Ether I borrowed and it sounded as good at times, as my HE1000.

While the Nighthawk made some improvements the HD650 peed all over it, not even a contest! That speed of the HD650 driver is pretty crazy.

I tried the HD650 on the Dragonfly and the ODAC after and I can see why some people are saying they like the Nighthawk better, I never realised how bad the 650 sound on entry level gear. Grab yourself a good DAC and the 650 will match pretty much anything out there.

The Nighthawk had really impressive bass on everything I tried. The Mojo with the ember on high gain was pretty special.

 

[FastAndClean]

It straight out beat the Mrspeakers Ether I borrowed and it sounded as good at times, as my HE1000.

 

The hype train is hitting hard those days, harder than light heavyweight mma fighter Dan Henderson