[dcd564]

I have both the HiFiMan and Fulla 2.

I haven't tried them together yet.

That's awesome!!! Whenever you have the opportunity, would you mind giving me your impressions of how they pair together? I really hope the Fulla 2 has sufficient voltage/current capability to drive them. I'd really appreciate it!

 

[watchnerd]

That's awesome!!! Whenever you have the opportunity, would you mind giving me your impressions of how they pair together? I really hope the Fulla 2 has sufficient voltage/current capability to drive them. I'd really appreciate it!

 
Sure, I can do that this weekend when I write my Burson review..

 

[cjl]

   
This is also a great help!  After doing a bit more research, it looks like the Fulla 2, Magni2/Modi2 stack, and the NFB-11 all fall within those parameters.  Let's say for the sake of cost, the NFB-11 is off the table.  Would you believe the Fulla 2 has sufficient voltage/current capability to drive the 400i?  Its specs are below.  The great thing about it is it's portable.  Or would the Magni2/Modi2, which is much more more powerful, be a better choice?  Or is it an unnecessary increase in power that will not improve the listening experience of the headphones?  I just don't want to make the wrong choice and realize that either I spent too much money and can't tell a difference (NFB-11) or didn't spend enough money to make an improvement.  That's why I feel a bit stuck, even trying to make a choice based strictly on the numbers.
 
Magni 2
Maximum Power, 32 ohms: 1.2W RMS per channel

Maximum Power, 50 ohms: 1.0W RMS per channel

Output Impedance: Less than 0.2 ohms

 
Fulla 2
Maximum Power, 32 ohms: 360mW RMS per channel
Maximum Power, 50 ohms: 230mW RMS per channel
Output Impedance: 0.5 ohms
 
HIFIMAN HE-400i
• Planar Magnet Headphones
• Impedance 35 Ohms (tests have shown it could really be 42-48)
• Efficiency 93 db

Planars fall in that "esoteric and hard to drive" category I mentioned, unfortunately, but the 400i at 93dB @ 1mw is not too bad. If we (pessimistically) use the 50 ohm power figure for the Fulla, that gives a peak SPL of 118dB. This is probably enough, assuming you have a gain structure that allows you to use that full power, though if you like to listen to high dynamic range music that spends a lot of time at -20 or -30dBFS (such as a lot of classical) and have a relatively low level input, and you like to listen relatively loudly, you might find you have to run the amp pretty close to full volume sometimes. The Magni would give an extra 5dB of headroom, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but the Fulla would probably be sufficient for most listening. I'll be curious to hear Watchnerd's impressions though.

 

[GuyUnder]

I educated the thread. Some people didn't want to hear it, and so...did not.

 

[chaos215bar2]

  Ultimately, does it really matter?  We can't eliminate placebo effect in non-testing, real world listening situations.  If the look or color of a headphone in some way affects how I perceive their sound, then that's part of the formula, no?  Therefore, real world testing, with all factors potentially affecting perception in play, is more useful, than trying to eliminate specific possible factors.  People don't listen with blindfolds on or not knowing what their cans look like, in the real world.
 
Basically, as long as someone believes what they're hearing, whether placebo is in play or not, all that matters is what they "think" they're hearing.  Perception is reality.

 
Yes, perception absolutely matters, but if you like an amp because it's just the right shade of blue and I don't like blue, then your opinion colored by the fact that the amp is the very best shade of blue you've ever seen isn't nearly as interesting to me as your opinion free of any knowledge of what the amp might look like, who made it, how much it cost, etc. Obviously this is a silly example, but when you're talking about high-end equipment where differences stretch the limits of audibility, other factors can and do influence opinions.
 
An example of this which is at least somewhat relevant to this audience is what happened once blind auditions became standard practice in orchestra hiring. Obviously amps aren't musicians and the same biases don't apply, but the only sure-fire way to ensure that preconceptions haven't colored an opinion is to eliminate them entirely. It's human nature to make judgements based in part on what one expects to find.
 

I educated the thread. Some people didn't want to hear it, and so...did not.

 
Err… Congratulations?

 

[watchnerd]

I educated the thread. Some people didn't want to hear it, and so...did not.

 
Total head scratcher...

 

[Morkai]

  Ultimately, does it really matter?  We can't eliminate placebo effect in non-testing, real world listening situations.  If the look or color of a headphone in some way affects how I perceive their sound, then that's part of the formula, no?  Therefore, real world testing, with all factors potentially affecting perception in play, is more useful, than trying to eliminate specific possible factors.  People don't listen with blindfolds on or not knowing what their cans look like, in the real world.
 
Basically, as long as someone believes what they're hearing, whether placebo is in play or not, all that matters is what they "think" they're hearing.  Perception is reality.

If you don't feel comfortable unless you have a huge slab of pretty machined metal in your rack and it's hindering your enjoyment then go for it

Ultimately, whether or not differences are audible, it's completely inarguable that psychoacoustic affects and visual stimuli have a huge effect on hearing, which will outstrip most subtle differences between source equipment even for the most experienced listener. Again, scientific fact, nobody can consciously overcome that influence. Some people may hear small differences anyway, but bias is unavoidable.

But once you are aware of that, perhaps you can try to use that knowledge to overcome those bias as much as you can. Otherwise, you might as well convince yourself of any delusion you see fit and call it reality. As long as it doesn't lead you to the Asylum..

 

[gregorio]

I educated the thread. Some people didn't want to hear it, and so...did not.

 
You attempted to do the opposite to educating the thread, you attempted to mislead and provide false information to the thread, either deliberately or because you yourself are mislead. Either way, people don't want to hear it because it's nonsense!
 

  Ultimately, does it really matter? [1] We can't eliminate placebo effect in non-testing, real world listening situations. [2]  If the look or color of a headphone in some way affects how I perceive their sound, then that's part of the formula, no?  Therefore, real world testing, with all factors potentially affecting perception in play, is more useful, than trying to eliminate specific possible factors.  People don't listen with blindfolds on or not knowing what their cans look like, in the real world.
 
Basically, as long as someone believes what they're hearing, whether placebo is in play or not, all that matters is what they "think" they're hearing.  Perception is reality.

 
Great argument, if you're trying to sell some expensive, unnecessary bit of kit but it falls apart pretty rapidly in the real world and has undesirable consequences.
 
1. We can't eliminate all biases which affect our perception in real world listening situations but some/many of the placebo effect biases can be eliminated/reduced because the placebo effect largely depends on expectation. For example, the placebo effect will often reduce or fail entirely once the subject knows it's a placebo.
 
2. Yes, it is part of the formula but only for that particular point in time. Maybe a day later you learn that it was a placebo and therefore the placebo effect no longer works on you. There are numerous biases which affect our perception, each of which can (independently of our other biases) stay static,  evolve over time or change rapidly. The undesirable consequence (for most) is that a piece of kit we believed was wonderful at one point in time is entirely likely to be perceived very differently the next day/week/month, leading to an unending, unfulfillable quest for "wonderful". If "perception is reality" then reality is constantly changing and therefore the sound quality of every audio component in my system is constantly changing and needs to be changed constantly! I personally therefore want to eliminate as many of those biases as possible, I don't for example want to be second guessing (and changing my perception) of my DAC with it's pico second accurate clock because someone is marketing a DAC with a femto clock which is apparently "night and day" better. Science helps here because it dictates there's no audible difference due to this femto clock and/or a DBT would confirm that. I can now be satisfied with my DAC, realise any changes to my perception are not real (and realign my perception), look for improvements elsewhere in my setup and spend my money on something which really does affect the audible sound quality (rather than just my momentary perception of it).
 
DBT is admittedly not perfect BUT it is BY FAR THE MOST effective method of eliminating or at least reducing more biases than any other method. Sighted tests are certainly not worthless, they're obviously a more effective evaluation tool than just accepting marketing material or someone's anecdotal evidence but they're still relatively worthless compared to DBT, not least because the marketers have spent over a century developing techniques specifically designed to influence/manipulate sighted tests to their benefit!
 
G

 

[Morkai]

Hmmm

Not sure I'm agreeing with myself here. Have to think about it. 

 

[Morkai]

What IS great sound, "better" sound ? How should we define that ?

 

[watchnerd]

  What IS great sound, "better" sound ? How should we define that ?

 
That's a new thread.

 

[GuyUnder]

As should be well known by anyone interested in the world of audiophillia ABX and DBT are notoriously bad. At play are the stress reaction to degrade audio perception and the audio memory that tends to smear differences over time.

The testing done at various shows and events are, moreover, poorly engineered on top of it all. Even if they weren't or in the tiny number of tests where serious attempt at controls were used just the listeners' relative to the speakers and room geometry will impact the sound.

I'm not denying the effect of expectation bias -- such as in a stressful environment like an audio show or testing studio. But I don't think people are so addled by biases in thier normal listening environment that they lose the ability to discern just because of how something looks different. I certainly don't suffer from it -- but then I audition new gear all the time in the pursuit of upgrades.

 

[Morkai]

   
That's a new thread.

Inc

 

[gregorio]

1. As should be well known by anyone interested in the world of audiophillia ABX and DBT are notoriously bad.

2. But I don't think people are so addled by biases in thier normal listening environment that they lose the ability to discern just because of how something looks different. I certainly don't suffer from it -- but then I audition new gear all the time in the pursuit of upgrades.

 
1. It is indeed well known that the more extreme audiophiles view ABX/DBT that way. It's also fairly well known why they do. However, in the much wider world of audio, rather than the rather nutty extreme audiophile niche, it's well known/accepted that ABX/DBT is by far the best, most reliable tool we've got, despite it's relatively minor weaknesses.
 
2. There are many more biases than just expectation biases (here's a list of just the cognitive biases) and you CERTAINLY DO suffer from biases, unless you are a bot or some other non-human! I take it you've seen this before?
 

 
Are you saying the McGurk Effect doesn't work on you? If you really don't suffer from any aural perception biases at all, listening to any commercial audio content must be a confusing nightmare? Not even silent films would make sense to you, as silent films aren't generally silent, they have a music score (which of course also requires perception biases to make any sense).
 
G

 

[watchnerd]

As should be well known by anyone interested in the world of audiophillia ABX and DBT are notoriously bad.

 
Luckily, I'm not really interested in that kind of audiophilia.
 
While I consider myself an audio enthusiast, I prefer an audio engineering lead approach.