I don't know Dale at all, so I don't know if his personal sound preferences match up with mine or anything like that. And the interesting thing about the Nighthawk to me is how much it improves with a modest EQ – much more for less EQ than any other headphone of the 150 I’ve owned." And BTW, very smooth – the opposite of rough. I simply flattened the awful response with this curve, then it was wonderful sounding. "No way did I ever “adjust” to its sound. "The NH is like a chameleon – it not only scales unusually well (given its not-so-good starting point), but it EQ’s much better than anything I know." Like the old Chinese proverb – look in the pot, there might be gold inside." Why EQ a Nighthawk when you can just buy a “better” headphone for less? Because the end result is better with the Nighthawk. but change the response even a little with EQ, and a marvelous hi-fi sound jumps out. "The frequency response, or signature, is definitely like molasses on a cool day – thick, syrupy, dark …. Here are some of the things Dale has said on the topic: Some of the things he has said piqued my interest regarding use of the NightHawk in tandem with a parametric equalizer. On another note, there have been some curious things said by a particular NightHawk owner Dale Thorn. I thought I read one reviewer who liked that DFR Red better with the NightHawk than with the Mojo because the Mojo gives a little too much bass to the already bassy NightHawk, but I can't find the source at the moment. I think most reviewers recognize that the Mojo is a better sounding device generally, but that the DFR comes alarmingly close for the price and is more convenient because of its size. Well, I cannot comment on the Mojo because I have not heard it but can say from my experience so far with the DragonFly Red than it synergizes beautifully with the NH.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |