[nmatheis]

Music Alchemist: I can only speak for myself, but saying things like...

"Much of the time it sounded like the complete opposite of how instruments actually sound."

"...even after I equalized it every which way, the NightHawk still sounded totally artificial to me most of the time."

"...the HD 800 annihilates the NightHawk in every way I can think of."

Well, they sound absolutist and as such are hard to take seriously. I appreciate the you at least gave the caveat that these are only your observations, but seriously? What is "the complete opposite of how instruments actually sound"? A tuba sounds like piccolo, lol? How does a headphone sound "totally artificial"? "HD800 annhialates Nighthawks"? What? Huh? How can I take this kind of analysis seriously? Can you please use more reasoned verbiage?

 

[Music Alchemist]

@Music Alchemist: I can only speak for myself, but saying things like...

"Much of the time it sounded like the complete opposite of how instruments actually sound."

"...even after I equalized it every which way, the NightHawk still sounded totally artificial to me most of the time."

"...the HD 800 annihilates the NightHawk in every way I can think of."

Well, they sound absolutist and as such are hard to take seriously. I appreciate the you at least gave the caveat that these are only your observations, but seriously? What is "the complete opposite of how instruments actually sound"? A tuba sounds like piccolo, lol? How does a headphone sound "totally artificial"? "HD800 annhialates Nighthawks"? What? Huh? How can I take this kind of analysis seriously? Can you please use more reasoned verbiage?

 
The NightHawk has a lot going for it, but is so unbelievably bad in so many ways that it's not even worth my time. (That goes for talking or reading about it too.) To that end, I am blocking this thread (via a Firefox plugin) so it won't load even if I accidentally click on it.

 

[YtseJamer]

Bye

 

[greggf]

Well.  Okay.

 

[nmatheis]

I'll look at those.  Who is AI?

Sorry, I was trying to type AQ. Audioquest is coming out with an IEM soon

The NightHawk has a lot going for it, but is so unbelievably bad in so many ways that it's not even worth my time. (That goes for talking or reading about it too.) To that end, I am blocking this thread (via a Firefox plugin) so it won't load even if I accidentally click on it.

Again, wow. Just wow...

:eek:


To get things back on track, I just got Nightowls in today for comparison vs. Nighthawks. I want to give them the proper run in time and more listening time before commenting further, but rest assured I'll be back from time to time to let you know what I think.

 

[greggf]

Good.  I'd like to hear about the NightOwls and the NightHawk Carbon vs. the original NightHawks . . .

 

[socks mk2]

[redacted]

 

[kman1211]

A little extreme.
 
Even though I have some issues with the Nighthawks, I would never call them a bad headphone. They are great headphones in fact, just some reason they aren't the ideal match for my ears. I am looking forward to auditioning some of the newer Nighthawk Carbon's(see if I can notice any difference in terms of fatigue, fidelity, treble, etc.) as well as the Nightowls. Also curious what improvements will be done with future AQ headphones driver-wise, etc.

 

[nmatheis]

Good.  I'd like to hear about the NightOwls and the NightHawk Carbon vs. the original NightHawks . . .

I've just got original NH vs NO. No NH Carbon here...

 

[socks mk2]

[redacted]

 

[Madmollusk]

To get things back on track, I just got Nightowls in today for comparison vs. Nighthawks. I want to give them the proper run in time and more listening time before commenting further, but rest assured I'll be back from time to time to let you know what I think.

 

 

[inthere]

Interesting. So the NH is the most neutral headphone you've heard? Since you use that and not any others?
 
So "Eddie", Did you use "Logic" to pose your question ? Or was it a wild "stab in the dark" at something that wasn't clearly suggested (I would imagine REs in general usually have several different "cans" they will use . I don't recall any talk about his "using" the NH for "all" situations.) How did you add 1 + 1 together & come up with 3 ?
 
Spend a little more time previewing what you plan on posting before hitting that "submit" button ! It will help you immensely ! (It was entertaining though !)

 
 1st of all, for accuracy, I compare headphones with the original recording, not with other headphones. I record the headphone with a binaural microphone and compare it with the original .wav file. Never trusted graphs and the "curves" involved with making them, and neither does Audioquest. HD800? Very unbalanced, thin and very light on bass if you compare it with the original recording. Boosted treble. Sensational treble clarity, but for mixing records, if you try to use HD800 as your sole monitoring source, you're going to naturally compensate for the lack of bass by adding some as well as backing off on the treble, so your mixes have a probability of turning out muddy. It seems on Head Fi a lot of bass-light headphones are considered "neutral". I myself love and own a lot of those headphones myself, but the fact is, even though a high end headphone removes bass bloat from a record to make it sound cleaner  than the original recording, in reality you're missing missing information if you don't hear that bass bloat.  
 
2nd, headphone listening is completely different from all forms of music listening because it's a side, directly-on-ear presentation as opposed to frontal presentation of everything else, and no one has really solved it. Someone on Head-Fi developed a nice HRTF algorithm to compensate for acoustics of number of headphones but in the end failed to accommodate the different sources.
 
Of course any experienced engineer will tell you A. Don't mix with headphones anyway and B. NEVER use only one monitoring source. Engineers always duck out of the studio and run mixes on other source than just the monitors in the studio, most common external source for decades has been car stereos, but recently computer speakers and others have also been added. Always, something you're familiar with. 
 
With the Nighthawk, it seems Audioquest has paid attention to acoustics more than any other headphone I've heard. Imagery and placement in the room is very close to what I hear with speakers. Now the problem with that I've found is it plays havoc with some ears, and I think it may have something to do with ear canal depth. This may be why opinions are so polarized with this headphone more than any other I've encountered. Shallow ear canals may hear things muddy while a deeper ear canal may hear things clearly. I stumbled upon this while adjusting the microphones in the binaural mic i built. 
 
So when someone tells me he hears the Nighthawk completely different from me, i believe him. 

 

[Venture Guy]

Nice post @inthere ! I think we are in violent agreement that they are tuned to sound more farfield than nearfield. I have super shallow ear canals and the NHs are clear as bell to my psychoacoustics. 

 

[waynes world]

The NightHawk has a lot going for it, but is so unbelievably bad in so many ways that it's not even worth my time. (That goes for talking or reading about it too.) To that end, I am blocking this thread (via a Firefox plugin) so it won't load even if I accidentally click on it.

Credibility... pretty much annihilated.

 

[EdwardPL]

What is wrong with you? Why so aggressive I asked him a question as I was intrigued. Seriously don't even speak to me with that negative little attitude I don't have the time of day for it.