A New Cable
The NightOwl comes with a new, high-performance AudioQuest cable with discrete mic and smartphone controls. It is a shorter (4.25ft) cable for easier use at your desktop or with mobile devices. The cable is supposed to be more flexible, more durable and less microphonic.
The cable’s conductors are made of high-purity copper that has been drawn and cast with exceptional care to eliminate as much oxygen content as possible, thereby significantly reducing impurities in the metal that would otherwise exacerbate distortion. The cable’s flexible jacket greatly reduces microphonics and its rigorously tested strain relief ensures longevity. The mic and smartphone control circuitry is kept separate from the audio circuitry, meaning that audio quality is never compromised for convenience.
Specs
NightOwl Carbon Specifications:
Dimensions: 30,5 x 17,8 x 17,8 cm ; 299 g
Impedance: 25 ohms
Sensitivity: 99dBSPL / mW
Power Handling: 1.5W
Weight: 346g (12.2 oz.)
Driver: 50mm Dynamic – Biocellulose Diaphragm – 1.2T Split-Gap Motor
Cable Specifications:
Length: 4.25′ (1.3m)
Conductors: Long Grain Copper
Jacket: Flexible, Non-Braided, Kink-Free, Non-Microphonic
Terminations: 3.5mm TRRS to Dual 2.5mm Mono, Direct-Silver Plated Tellurium Copper (TeCu)
Discrete Microphone and Smartphone Controls
Adaptor (included):3.5mm to 1/4″, Direct-Silver Plated High-Purity
Sound
First of all there’s a difference in sound based on the pads you’re using. The NightOwl comes installed with the protein leather pads but switching the pads is very easy with the click system AudioQuest decided to use. It doesn’t take one minute to swap the pads and it’s impossible to put them on the wrong way but I wouldn’t suggest changing the pads all the time as the system might get worn out. The microsuede pads’ biggest impact is on the bass part as they reduce the bass body by quite a bit. With the microsuede pads bass is civilized and close to neutral body-wise. It’s tight and fast but very light. Voices are precise and more forward as the mid body is also reduced a little. The result is a clear sounding headphone that’s closer to the typical neutral presentation. With the pleather pads you first of all get bigger bass impact and mid body with a more spacious feel. The voices sound more natural but the overall tone is a little warmer and musical compared to the more neutral microsuede pads. The below impressions are based on the pleather pads.
With the pleather pads the sound signature is on the warmer side of neutral but as we’ll explain in the next chapter, it is different from that of the NightHawk. The NightOwl, even with the pleather pads, is more balanced with a great marriage of detail and musicality. First words that come into mind are clarity, spaciousness and musicality.
The sound stage width, certainly for a closed headphone, is really good. Its depth is good too and it has nice layering. Not at LCD-XC levels but really good never the less. From bass to treble, the NightOwl is spacious but never overly so, it’s just right. For a closed headphone, it sounds very open even. That, together with the good separation make it an audiophile level sounding headphone that a whole lot of music lovers will like. Because of the more clear and clean presentation a whole lot of detail is audible and for this price range, the level of detail is very good. The detail combined with the richness of the mids make it a precise yet musical headphone with a smoother than neutral delivery. I however wouldn’t say the NightOwl is a warm or smooth headphone and compared to the NightHawk it isn’t by far. Its pace actually is pretty good and it has no issues performing with faster paced music.
Bass body and punch with the pleather pads is really good and it at the same time is detailed/layered and musical. Bass goes down reasonably deep and when needed the rumble down low is certainly there and it will make you smile. It will never exaggerate and overpower the mids or the rest of the music however; the NightOwl is always in control. The mids flow perfectly from the bass but their separation is good. The mids sound rich and layered and the delivery is musical. Voices are natural and slightly upfront but in a good way. They’re not thin or forward but they’re realistic and engaging. Treble is lively and dynamic but it isn’t the most extended. Delivery is musical and soft but they’re energetic enough to contrast the pleather pad bass and keep things exciting and lively.
The AudioQuest NightOwl sounds great . It’s clean and clear, has a good level of detail with a musical presentation and it simply has a very qualitative sound overall. It’s my favorite AudioQuest product together with the awesome DragonFly RED. It’s hard not to like the NightOwl, I’ll tell you that.
Comparisons
When switching from the AudioQuest NightOwl to the NightHawk the first thing that will hit you is how spacious (some would say hollow) the NightHawk sounds. The NightOwl is more defined and precise, while the NightHawk is airy first of all but it also musical. The NightOwl is more forward sounding than the NightHawk and the mids are more forward but don’t mistake the NightOwl for a forward headphone as it’s a rather balanced one. The NightOwl is cleaner, more precise and clearer. The open back NightHawk logically sounds more open than the closed NightOwl but you can clearly hear these are from the same family. I personally find the NightOwl to be the more balanced of both headphones but some might like the softer voices and chill attitude of the NightHawk. The NightHawk simply is a smoother and more relaxed headphone while the NightOwl is precise and to the point. I personally think both of these headphones are complementary but I have found myself picking up the NightOwl most of the time, especially for listening to music to.
The Beyerdynamic DT770PRO AE/32 ($160-ish) is one of the most popular closed headphones on the market and it also is a whole lot cheaper. First thing you’ll notice here is how treble has a lot more focus and presence and how much more airy the NightOwl sounds. The sound signature of the DT770 on velour pads is more V-shaped and with the mids more in the background this is a very different and thinner sounding headphone compared to the NightOwl. Voices also sound more natural and the whole presentation is warmer, thicker (mids) and more musical yet at the same time it is more balanced and coherent. Bass on the NightHawk is tighter and has more punch and presence. A good tube amp will strongly improve the DT770’s bass but with the Mojo in example, this isn’t the case. Going back to the DT770 – coming from the NightOwl – is tough and it takes a while to get used to the completely different sound signature. Both are great headphones, just very different.
The closed Beyerdynamic DT1770PRO, unlike the cheaper DT770AE, sets you back $599 and is a lot closer to the AudioQuest NightOwl price wise. Sound wise the new DT1770 is closer to the NightOwl as the mids have more body and the sound is more balanced. While the sound stage and separation of the DT1770PRO are good, the NightHawk sounds more open. Bass and mids still have more body and presence in the NightOwl while the DT1770 is lighter and more neutral. Voices are more forward in the NightOwl and especially the lush airy mids of the NightHawk are more upfront. These are very different headphones where I’d call the DT1770 clean, precise and clear and the NightHawk musical, spacious and full bodied. The NightOwl is the easiest to listen to and it will please most ears. Both Beyerdynamic headphones are very differently tuned compared to the NightOwl, and switching between both brands is quite the shock for your ears.
Portable Sources
The AudioQuest DragonFly RED undoubtedly was used for testing and fine-tuning the NightOwl and as a result the combination is good indeed. Great layering, separation and depth. Very good detail overall and all that with a musical and airy delivery. Voices are a little more forward but natural and bass body is slightly bigger. While I wouldn’t put this combination at the same level as the Mojo-Owl setup, this still is very good.
The Android driven Cayin i5 DAP has no issues powering the NightOwl. Voices sound more forward but the presentation is spacious and both the bass and mids have good layering and depth. Bass and mid body is good and bass is tight and in control. The i5 does seem to elevate the upper mid and treble a little putting the lower mids more in the background. The presentation is clear and detailed. Fiio’s newest X5iii DAP borrowed some ideas firm the AK380 but it is the DAP I for the moment love using most on-the-go. The NightOwl sounds clean and clear with good tight bass. Separation is good but the presentation isn’t as spacious or detailed as the i5’s. The overall signature is balanced yet relaxed and fairly neutral in a musical way. I prefer this relaxed and balanced presentation over the i5’s but the ideal mix would have the presentation of the X5iii and the detail of the i5.
From the extremely musical Luxury & Precision L3Pro, the NightOwl sounds really great just like on the Mojo. Bass is a little bigger but has great layering. The mids are rich, voices are sensual and treble is lively. A very balanced and natural sounding NightOwl with a good pace but smoother than with the Mojo. If you don’t care about the UI, the L&P L3PRO is an extremely good DAP and of the three daps listed in this category, this one is my favorite with the NightOwl. Straight from my Samsung S6 – I updated – the NightOwl sound light but clean with a good amount of detail. Presentation is clear and spacious but the bass body isn’t the biggest. I fully recommend hooking up a DragonFly for better performance.
(Yes, I could have talked about the Mojo, Hugo and RHA in this section as well as they’re all DAC/AMP combos, but even the DAPs can be used as such)
Portable Sources, Amplification and the conclusion can be found on Page Three
NightPhotographer
When both T90 and NightOwl are properly ampped, which one has better base and sound stage?
Cheers
Lieven
The Bass quantity will always be bigger in the Owl while it technically will be superior in the T90. The sound stage will be for the T90 but the body is there with the Owl. Very different and complementary headphones.
Concerned reader
Just a note: “qualitative” does not mean “high quality.” The meaning is closer to “quantifiable” or “numerically-based.”
Dale thorn
Given the overall word-munching in the review, it kinda fits…
Less Concerned Reader
Neither does it mean “low quality”, nor anything in between. But it is about qualities. ie. subjective assessment. In CONTRAST to “quantitative”, which is objective measurement.
lossendae
Have you tried the Shure 1540 ? If so how would it compare agains the NightOwl ?
Cheers
Johnny
The Microphone that come with the Nightowl, can it be used with PC? If it does, is it “always-on” or it is push to talk?
Lieven
I actually broke my cable, so I can’t test it atm. sorry
Eric
Thank you for an interesting review.
I’m wondering: How well does the headphone isolate? I need a headphone that I can use in a crowed environment without me disturbing the outside world and vice versa. How is the isolation compared to the Beyerdynamic DT1770 pro?
Lieven
Pretty well actually. They both do. Yesterday I gave the Owl to a colleague and I scared the hell out of him as he didn’t hear me come in and say hi. Same for the Beyer
marco
creative aurvana live costs 45euros and are way better than this piece of shit.i can’t believe i jumped again on the hype train.
dale thorn
My CAL had a huge bass hump and an equally deep recess at 5 khz – awful, simply awful. So it’s a disappointment to hear that the NightOwl is tuned badly also, like the NightHawk I paid $600 for. That Skylar Gray guy who designs those for AudioQuest must have ears like a bat.
marco
voices are like they are covered with a veil, it’s like earing them over a wall or something. they remind me senn hd650 bad amped.
aurvana is better hands down. the funny thing is that i bought these because they have the same cellulose driver but i thought that would be better because of the higher cost…………… disappointed…
Ryan Teo
Do you think this is compatible with the creative x7 ltd edition? Thanksss!
dale thorn
I just bought this at the new $400 USD price. I expect it to be better than the NightHawk, i.e. really, really good.
dale thorn
Well, the NightOwl doesn’t seem to have the bass emphasis of the NightHawk, but it does have the NightHawk’s suckout in the lower treble, i.e. around 2-4 khz or so. The response gets better toward the high treble, even above 10 khz (with a peak at 9 khz, which is extremely common). I’m hoping I can have a very simple EQ job in trimming that 9 khz peak and boosting the lower treble a bit, without having to touch the bass. I’ve found most headphones that have too much bass sound better with the bass reduced a little, than headphones with not enough bass where I have to boost the bass.
I’m using the installed pleather pads rather than the velour/fabric pads. The advantage of pleather for me is they wear less and don’t absorb sweat like the fabric pads, but people say the fabric pads are cooler in warm weather. How long that cooler feature lasts when sweat gets absorbed a lot is doubtful.
Anyway, my bottom line is what I remember of the NightHawk – with a simple EQ it had a nice warm and musical sound with a decent amount of detail, which is about the best I could expect for the price. The quality of the NightOwl shows, especially in the close balance of left-right drivers at different frequencies.
dale thorn
Turns out the NightOwl has a fairly weak bass, while the NightHawk had some emphasis in the upper bass/lower mids. The biggest problem with the NightHawk was the lower-treble recess, not the small bass emphasis, so with the NightOwl they made the bass worse (weak) and didn’t address the treble at all. Then again, Focal’s flagships suffer the same low-treble recess, and they cost a lot more.
Omar Hodges
Audioquest obviously recognized the problem with the Nighthawk and produced these. After all, the Nighthawk only came out 4-5 years ago. Hopefully the included cable is sturdier this time around – the one included with the Nighthawk went kaput four months after I purchased it. Not good, especially for a company that specializes in cables. A few years later the headband broke.
josh
I feel like Audioquest listened to the consumer and fixed all the things people didn’t like about the Nighthawk. I’ve had my NH for a few years now and just got the Nightowl about a week ago and I love them.
Compared to the NH the Nightowl has a more controlled bass but still has that thump I love about the NH. The best part to me is the more forward midrange now which give them a more musical sound and vocals are more engaging which is great. The treble has better extension with a bit more sparkle up top and no longer has the veil over them like on the NH. Soundstage and imaging are really good for a closed hp and the 3D presentation just adds to the overall size as well.
Now I’m glad I chose these over the Fostex TH-X00 I was thinking of getting but the Nightowl is more my speed and has lower distortion than most headphones.