XXHighEnd

... and it is not mine, sort of ...

What you are going to read into now, is so impactive for our Audio, it is beyond comprehension. And first point is : it really is. Also mine (read and not to forget : I don't know what is going on for real). Try not to be confused by the two fully separated subjects and appliances this is about.

Let's dive in ...

---

No two weeks ago, by a kind of accident, I set a 16/32 processor to utilize 10/20 cores only. N.b.: This can easily be done in the BIOS. Now it has become a 10/20 for everything that sees and uses it, thus also our playback software.
I did it because something drew too much power and with less cores active, less power is consumed. All nothing strange and all so good so far.

At the moment I had to do this, it was already in my mind to apply this to the 14/28 I was again listening to, noticing that this had its own goodies in the Highs I knew from the 16/32 (the both sound very similar if not the same anyway) but it lacked the specialty Mid I knew from the genuine 10/20.
And thus at the same day I was fiddling with that power consumption (in a customer's new Mach III system) I applied the utilization of the 10/20 cores to the 14/28 which was assembled in my own Mach III.
And right out of that box I received the best - most "genuine" sound ever. Really so.

Maybe I must stop describing SQ as such, because superlatives rolling over previous superlatives at some stage fail to work out, so let's say I stick to "genuine" for now, as if it would be a "so-so" improvemend, but for the better anyway. No. Nothing of that kind. It was by far the largest - and foremost unexpected improvement ever. What I mean is, I expected to maybe now the 14/28 in 10/20 mode to sound similar to the original 10/20, but nothing of that order was in place and instead a new magnitude of SQ occurred. So huh ?

---

While I was contemplating how this could be, and was thinking of matter like the overhead of the processor, normally used to serve 14/28 cores, now could be applied to 10/20 cores and thus more "attention" per core, so to speak, the next tweak was luring around the corner already : a prototype of the Lush^2.

OK, cool. A Lush^2. Must be a Mark II or so, right ?
Wrong. The power-of-two implies a multitude of Lush but in a way you maybe won't expect : in its possibilities.

The Lush^2 has so many possibilities that I would need to write software to explore them all, but on rough estimate it could be 10000 at least. So the Luch^2 is 10000 Lush cables.
Now what.
All right, we'll see later about that.

---

My prototype Lush only exhibited (I think) 5 "situations", so luckily I could only try 5 as well. That would be easy enough.

The first one ? dead sound.
The second one ? strange sound.
The third one ? Bingo !!

... and just as I expected I could find "a best" Lush within that prototype Lush^2. And I had yet better sound again from the newly formed 10/20 which is a 14/28. OK, what I could notice perhaps was now so much bass that for the first time since using the Orelo MKII speakers I had to idea to maybe tune down the bass a bit (DSP) because I heard a slight coloring coming from it. But otherwise the properties were so much of "generosity" in all frequencies, that I took it for granted and meanwhile thought that maybe I got too old to try the 4th and 5th Lush^2 proto setup. So I just did not do that and instead listened to it for about a week.
Until three days ago, because then a real Lush^2 was ready.

---

I suppose the time has come to explain a bit about the possibilities of the Lush^2, or actually what they comprise for its elements.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Lush^2/Explanation-02a.png)
There we go. In the right top corner we see three silverly colored hatched shields denoted W, Y and R. The White is the original shield and the purple under that in the drawing is the isolation as we have it in the original Lush (let's call that Lush^1 for today). Looking upwards in the drawing, the purple isolation, the Yellow shield, the again purple isolation and the Red shield and a last purple isolation, are all new to the Lush^2. The braid (hatched yellow) is the same as we know it from the Lush^1.

Now try to imagine that the Lush^1 is all about (or at least foremost) the dielectric and how that forms the imdedance and further properties. This was explicitly thought over, or at least the best to my knowledge. With this, let's keep in mind that I trief to make a USB cable not with USB specs but with Audio specs. And say that this worked about because almost without exception people perceive the analogues sound of it (I never counted really, but we sold I think close to 2000 of them).

Now the Lush^2. Well, I can honestly tell you that I would not be able to tell the properties of it with these now 3 shields. Of course, we could say that 3 shields are better than 1 or something like that, but point is : I already have the empirical knownledge that this won't bring us far.
So read on ...

---

JSSG 360

I can't avoid explaining what the base of the ^2 part is because it isn't my invention in full. So credit where credit is due, although nothing is new there too - but say this is about the particular application for the Lush cable.

What is known (or at least I knew it) is how "grounding" as such works out differently for a shielded cable when in parallel "over" the shield an other wire is drawn. Thus, solder a normal wire to both ends of the shield and now we have in parallel the shield and that wire. Can't do much, you'd say.
But it does. It changes the shielding properties wildly.
Actually this is the "JSSG" part; It stands for John Swenson Shielding Guidelines and it was brought forward in a Lush-tweaking communicty (over at CA).

Because people are creative, people like lmitsche/Larry & austinpop/Rajiv, thought to make a "360 degrees" version of his potentially JSSG'd Lush. This is how the the JSSG 360 emerged as a general shielding application to cables in general.
From elsewhere the topology of 3 shields were taken, and form there things got mad because of the confusion of what people connected to which. Should the shields be connected ? be connected at one end only ? should there be isolation between them anyway ?
Fun is : the tweaks can be applied around the original cable (sleeve/braid) - or at least that is how people are able to do it in practice. This won't work out 100% equal to a "native" situation, but that is OK as long as the sound improves.

---

Back to the Lush^2 possibilities, let's look here for an example of a few, out of 1000s'. Thus mind you, these are only examples, with the remainder to your imagination, because really everything is possble. Everything for any combination you can think of. So just digest somewhat :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Lush^2/Comb-Examples2 - Publica.png)
White is still the inner shield, Yellow the middle one and Red the outer one.
Now try to envision how the first configuration on the top row will work out completelt different from the last one on the first row - there the middle shield floating but still contributing to the dielectric. Or what about the 2nd on the second row where all is connected in parallel, but floats (and do note that this is just legal and works bit-error free).

---

So, ready now for the big blast ? then here we go with the results.

There I was with my set Lush^2 real production cable. I had connected all like the very first config above. Btw, with that I anticipate some "crossed" shieling, with no real clue of how it would work out (maybe such a thing has ever been done before). So notice with this config that current might flow over the shield to begin with (thus also with Lush^1 which would only contain the White shield) and that currents now run into each other but separated by isolation. Some kind of "balanced" mode, but different. And FYI, would we want the "return path" not to be in the middle but outside ? no problem, because the Lush^2 can be onfigured for that too (again, really all countless combinations are possible).

As said, there I was. I listened to the 14/28 set as a 10/20 with this config and noticed this very explicit clean undistorted highs. And on a side note I asked around over here what was perceived according to them, but all what came from that over and over again was "clear". Thus not per se undistorted, what I wanted to hear from them (because that was my own perception). OK, fine.

Next up was the 10/20 processor with unchanged Lush^2.
Wow !! that did not last for 30-40 minutes because I got crazy of too much bass and too less/uninteresting highs. What a louzy USB cable that suddenly was !
I recalled the 10/20 processor to sound very very different so I thought to make it sound the same again as I was used to. I only connected the White shield, just as how the original Lush^ is set up. And bingo. The very same sound as far as I can recall it.
This is really wonderful because I really hoped for that (the least people can enjoy is the native Lush).

---

The sound in general

Well, what to say.
From the few combinations I applied, I already know that
a. the Sound Quality can improve massively from the original Lush;
b. you can tweak the sound to all directions which is about the balance.

Ad a.
This is what everybody reports who applied it - though they applied mainly one situation : all connected in parallel at both ends.

Ad b.
In an in fact crazily good sounding situation / config, I could easily show how a walking lower keyed (bass) line missed 6dB or so on the upper note. This normally goes unnoticed, but once you have the focus on this it may/will occur.

As a bonus, I can tell you what I actually hunted for :
After having heard the 10/20 (say from a few weeks ago the last time), the 14/28 could not satisfy me for 100% any more because it lacked the specialty the 10/20 has in an other area (it is much more mid emphasized). For this reason I found the 14/28 sound too thin (all is relative and I should not have listened to the 10/20). This in itself was thus solved by the kind of accidental setting the 14/28 to 10/20 cores with a for me perfect balance, but the Lush^2 showed that it could go all directions after all. It is only that I don't know how yet, and also that it will be about too many combinations to ever try in my life time. Thus, a typical community thing, perhaps.

How this is able to emphasize frequencies is technically beyond me yet, but all will be related to RF/EMI stuff which may be unmeasurable. Also, whether it is the environment hammering on the cable (and audio bits) or whether it is the cable hammering on the environment (like the D/A process) ... I can't tell. Fact will be that possibly even either situation is now massively prevented by the shielding but depending on how we do it. I myself am as far that of the original Lush^1 would coincidentally have sounded the best for these matters, the chance of that will have been 1:10000 (or whatever the number of possibilities).

One last remark about the sound, just because I noticed it;
It is the supermost easy to create a more umpf than what you were used to (that too is reported by others). This in itself is very interesting because "important". It is key to the more genuine sound (I'd say), never mind we got quite far already regarding this with the B'ASS amplifier in one's NOS1a/G3. While this too is an "emphasis" to frequency it does *not* work out like a shift towards an other emphasis. It just seems to work on its own. And for that matter, it is relatively easy to put the emphasis on two or even more frequencies. And in addition (or it's the same ?) what Cisks here repeatedly says is that "all is so separate". On its own. N.b.: This is not really how I observe it, but - or because what I hear is that all becomes so undistorted. Make that "not mixed up with the other sounds" and we have Ciska's judgment.

For prices, see here (https://stordiau.com/collections/cables-and-more-snakes-oil/products/lush-2-usb-audio-cable).
I think we managed nicely with the price and also we now allow for a shorter cable of 40cm, just because I'm confident that the configuration can allow for every possible anomaly-attack.
Anyway, people already owning a Lush^1 will receive a 50 euros discount per ordered Lush^2 (credited to the PayPal account).
The 300cm was removed from the gamma because we feel it just will take too long to make and will be too expensive for that reason. Apologies to those who wanted to opt for 300cm.

I sincerely hope that without exception now everyone can find a very best sound which is also ultimately better than what they were used to.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Lush^2/Lush^2 USB Audio Cable a.JPG)High Resolution link Lush^2 USB Audio Cable (http://www.stordiau.nl/Lush^2/Lush^2 USB Audio Cable.JPG)

Peter

PS: You won't be able to make the connections without a guide how to to it. This guide will be obtained for you on paper for each of the examples you see in above diagrams. From there you will easily be able to make any connection you like.

Michel, might you wonder where your post (and mine) went ... : Re: Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear Power Supply (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=4013.msg43517#msg43517).

Peter

Hmm ... I just realized that I didn't even show a photo of the Lush^2.:fool:
So it's in the first post now.

Peter

Hi Peter, I remember playing around with USB and LAN cable shields years ago, and hearing a distinct difference in sound. In any event, I'll order a new Lush when I get back from my work travels.

Don't look forward to trying all (or even a fraction of) the combinations though :(

Mani.

Hi Mani,


I guess we'll help each other a bit with it.
The first has arrived by now (yesterday), a few more will today and again a few more tomorrow.
I am planning to make a kind of experience schematic (and of course I already forgot half of it by now).

Thank you Mani,
Peter

OK, I don't believe what I'm hearing.

All,

My post from yesterday was about so much raving, that I didn't know what to actually say, but this :

OK, I don't believe what I'm hearing.

For background maybe - My Lush^2 has been broken in for a first few days and I didn't even saw that coming. Also, my mentioned "prototype" was a tweak of my by now 15 or so months old Lush^1, which was for the purpose of being broken in already. At least that is how it is in my mind. Otherwise ? otherwise I completely forgot about the new Lush^2 I am using now and that this indeed could use some breaking in.

Actually day before yesterday I already had something of a "wow, what's next then ?!?", but yesterday ... no words.
Really, I can not find words any more for what this all does. One thing I am sure about : this officual Lush^2 must be way way better (working out) than the tweaked ones, or otherwise I'd hear similar raving expressions from others, but then in English people know for it. I just can't.

Yesterday something like "eletric butterflies" came to my mind, but then of a faster type - maybe mots. So the "shattering" I have been talking about regarding the Mach III is now that, but 10 fold. The mid detail is now so stupidly enormous that it is sheer impossible that it hadn't been there before. It is too loud to miss, so to speak.

It is now not spooky any more, but completely "impossible". Still it exists. It is right here and everywhere (around me). Together with that, it is all so "mild" regarding possible hurting ears stuff. Nothing hurts. All is mighty interesting.

Interesting is just the same how on earth this can exist for a digital (USB) cable which already was superb in mysterious ways of course (but at least I "did" that explicitly), this now hugely superceded by means of a couple of specially connected shields. This I did NOT work on for design as such, unless it is about the design on the possibilities itself (the way they can connect).

For now and for those who want a start :
My Lush^2 in its IIRC 2nd attempt of connecting, is connected exactly the way the JSSG phenomenon proposes :
Inner shield connected from front to end (connectors); the middel and outer shield connected in parallel, those not connected to the connectors. See below (and those already possessing one, will understand the schematic and how to connect).

Peter

Hi Peter

I have had the original Lush for several weeks now and like it very much but having read the 100% success that C.A members have had with the JSSG 360 tweak I decided to try it myself.  I had high hopes but unfortunately the 360 sheilding has resulted in a decrease in SQ - a marked 'digital' sound and bloated bass that I didn't get using my pre-tweaked Lush.

As you have obviously done a lot of work trialing the new Lush^2 do you think I should give it more time to burn in or did you find that with all the many permutations/setups available with Lush^2 that some did not suit your hifi setup and SQ was degraded as compared to using the Lush mk1?
Anyway, new Lush^2 has got to be a one of a kind in USB cable-land so congratulations!

Hi there Tim - welcome here and thank you for sharing that.


For 100% sure, that. And mind you, I can't tell at all yet the chance of running into a wrong(ly sounding) configuration but I am pretty sure that where "a" config can work out for the better, the other may just as well work out for the worse;
As I said earlier on, the original Lush has been set up for a technically balanced situation (which was subjective to our ears over here) and all what's done to it would theoretically shift that balance to ...
Yes, to what. To the better because that was still possible or to the worse. So if we recall how I described in the first page(s) of the original Lush that it required 5 or 6 attempts to find the proper direction of that same balance we are taking about, then you can just as well interpret that as "more or less shielding". Well, sort of, because it is about more or less dieletric (behavior). Thus envision, you make one cable (which includes buying material - wrong. A next one - wrong. A next - hmm. A next, yes, better. A next - bingo ! Meanwgile though you're weeks further and you don't like to overdo it, which also incorporates the "step size". IOW, there you give up because it is good enough.

The JSSG 360 tweaks are, if you ask me, just luck (plus we don't know of each other what "better" actually means because to an extent we're all subjective listeners, right ?).

The Lush^2 will and can not work out the same as you guys' tweaks because you won't be using the same materials, and might you coincidentally do use the same materials, the chance is virtually zero that you apply the same thickness hence tightness. Everybody will be doing this differently which already is caused by - a supposedly same - metal braid but which the one stretches more than the other, once it is around the cable. This already affects the shielding (such a shield is always expressed in a percentage of surface covering, like 90% (you can still see through it) or 100% (all just closed) or 110% (it overlaps partly) etc. but also the working (the work out) of the dielectric.
And FYI what we (Phasure) additionally add is the "crossing" of the fields the schield implies (or prevents).
Obviously the Lush^2 is already totally different because the dielectric is controlled (is under our control) while all you people can do is wrap a couple of layers around the original dielectric, not even thinking about its effects. We, thus, start at the core of the cable, give it it's first new metal shield (of certain (controlled) "airines" for tightness plus also coverage (the mentioned 90, 100, 110%), put an isolation layer around that which is even more important (because it is really part of the dielectric), have a next layer of "metal braid" again, isolate that again because we feel it is a good thing for the dielectric and which you people will not have applied, to lastly put the yello sleeve as we know it over the lot.
And you know what ? now the Lush^2 is more flexible than the original Lush while the original is actually for 100% there regarding the (amount of) material used.

My previous post told about the same config (for conections) as the JSSG 360 and that sounding vastly superior to anything else for normal Lush and the few (I think 2 only !) other combinations I tried for the Lush^2. And again, I just stopped there because it is too hard to interrupt your playback session of the day to try something better while it just went "10x" better, plus a next day you long for that sound again thus again you won't tweak. Right ? Will I ever try an other config ? of course - and probably when something starts to annoy me and I think it could be improved on. And as you already know Tim, the "config" makes or breaks it and the least what will happen is that it will sound "different".

In an attempt to answer your question better : what sounded "a best" for the particular Audio PC and *its* configuration - like for a 14/28 core processor (as how we refer to them for the Mach III PC) set to 10/20 cores - and which was the Lush^2 fully serially connected (see very first diagram in the first post), does not sound good at all in the native 10/20 core processor setup. So this varies per PC (in this case per processor because the PC is 100% the same otherwise) and this is exactlt what can be expected from a shielding setup. Thus, whether it is the shield config which prevents PC noise to enter the signal wire, or whether it is the USB cable which radiates and the shielding setup prevents influence on to other components ... the former is the most likely because what we'll change with the different processor setups is different radiation from the processors (and maybe more, up to in the motherboard).
:heat:
Conclusion : what sounds best of another person, may not sound the best for you. And not because of your ears but because of what the environment (mainly the PC) depicts.

And the fun of the Lush^2 should be that you can control it.

Kind regards,
Peter

PS: I'd find it hard to believe that this shielding itself requires burn in. So the "signalling" part of your Lush did not change (this is plus data, minus data, ground, and 5V if you use that) and only whe the shield carries current, burn in could be in order. Does it carry current ? It should not because it isn't connected (see yellow and red lines in the picture of my previous post). But I can't be definitive because I can't tell what forces are at play, also thinking of micro level stuff we may not even know about. I mean, who would have guessed a few months ago that stupid shielding would "make" the sound of a USB cable, which USB cable in itself already shouldn't even be able to influence the sound at all. But as we know ...  :innocent:
(we don't know much)

Hi again all,

This could be a special notice to all people we dear, and it tells you not to be disappointed if soon you need to wait literally months before we could produce your Lush^2. And, while I could say "4 weeks" at some stage, this may be extended to 8 weeks on the fly. How does this work ?

First off, like with the original Lush, the Lush^2 is not made to stock. With the original Lush we were always able to keep up (somehow) and to be honest only the past 3-4 months or so we could finally produce a few for stock. But, this only told us that we could readily ship instead of making a few quickly on an ad-hoc base. It was also good because in the same period the Mach III PC emerged, and that too consumes time, obviously.

Secondly, while the customer base of the Lush^1 slowly but steadily grew over the past year, this stream of orders now will stop and will continue in the Lush^2. This implies just the normal workload. But where it really impacts is the old customer base which may (will ?) order the new Lush^2, with 100s at a time, if they only learn the news that it exists.

On the particular webshop page we now maintain a prediction of the lead time (see bottom of the page). This incorporates current Lush^2 orders, but it also will incorporate all other orders like for the Mach III with the clear notice that such orders will have prevalence for the simple reason of the Lush^2 being there to stay, while a PC topology will be obsolete in 2-3 years of time. So in the end it is not allowed to tell a customer to wait for 2 months for his Stealth III because we are making Lush cables.

Moral : you obviously are allowed to wait as long as you deem OK, but please never complain that you are waiting forever for your Lush^2 to arrive. I say this, because this really happened more than once and towards each such beloved customer it seems to require justification how we, for example, went out for holidays instead of working on the product. So Yes, we are all a bit obsessed. Well, don't miss out ?
So the latter is all this post is about, maybe foreseeing a larger flood of orders. If you can bear the wait, all is fine !

Best regards,
Peter

All,

I just put this in my signature :

Lush^2 A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W

It means that

for connctor A the Black and White wires are connected (inner shield connected to the connector) and that the Yellow and Red wires are connected (middle and outer shield are connected but are not connected to the connector);

for connector B the Black and White wires are connected (inner shield connected to the connector) - and that is all (middle and outer shield are open).

The completely changes the sound from a somewhat congested (too white) highs to ever so lasting colored cymbals. Btw, this is what I had in mind with it for a change (I found the highs too profound).
What came with it is a super fluid/liquid bass which sings and plays music. I actually never experienced the bass like that.

Side note : this was a one-go change and immediately it worked for the so much better. The very first thing you will notice is the bass.

Because all is more liquid, the over-emphasized "electric butterflies" lessened (with which I am OK with) but what's occurring foremost is the so great emphasis on the snare drum. Don't ask me how that happened ...
First off its sound comes along with the cymbals now rendering much better, and with that the snare can be hit hard while it sounds superb (no distortion, no harshness, full of "shell"). And well, while I say "hit" hard, I better make that "now sounds loud". It is as if each drummer is now sort of slamming the snare, which in all honesty, always is profound in real life. It is just that I think that with music reproduction we are not used to it much. Because of this, each tempo (like up-beat etc.) becomes more profound and lets you go with the music super easy.

Apologies fo an again strange and new-ish description of sound, but I guess new universes incur for that ?

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter
Any chance you can post actual photos (instead of drawings) of both ends as you have them configured?

I connected my Lush^2 as I think you said but I am not certain. I am not hearing a large difference, but I do think there is noticeable increase in bass response of my system. I am still evaluating and will report back in a day or 2. Thanks

So Fred, thus you do hear a noticable difference. :)


I have no spare cables right at this moment, and my own is configured as in my previous post plus it is a bit dark here (5 am), it is connected in my system and ... why actually ?

Let's say that I wrote this to you for an easy start :

You can start with connecting B to W at both ends. Now you have the normal Lush. But it may sound different.
The jumpers can be put to the free pins (both sides) to avoid shortcutting with anything.

Then you'd take one end, and put the Black wire to the pin with the red dot. The White wire you put on the pin right next to it. On the 4 remaining pins you'd put the two jumpers (to prevent shortcutting with anything. The Yellow and Red wires would stay loose.
On the other end you'd do exactly the same.

Of course you can make a photo and I can confirm whether you did it correctly. But you will have ...

Regards,
Peter

PS: Like this, but pull off the Yellow and Red and put a jumber at that position(s) instead. Apply it to the B connector the very same.

Fred, that may be too long for you. :)

Once you get the hang of it, you may right away jump on the next step, which is my current (still in my sig at this moment) :

A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W

To materialize it, I will make a picture of this setting later today.

Peter

A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W

or

A Connector, Inner shield connected to Connector, Middle and Outer shield connected to each other but not to connector.

B Connector, Inner shield connected to Connector, Middle and Outer shield open.

Thanks very much Peter. The photos really helped me. I did do it correctly and tonight I will experiment :soundsgood:

Ok
There are many possible combinations here. Check Peter's settings or the photos above. I changed to those the other night and I found much more than the extra bass I heard the night before.

The musical "window" opened even wider, and more real.
My musical involvement is now in this new universe.

From my Mach III post - Keep exploring Henry :whistle:

:) :)

OK ...
What I notice from my previous setting (still in my Sig) is that the dynamic range somehow is enormous. Note that I didn't say dynamics as in transient, but just the difference between soft and loud. And I am quite confident this is about the being more black in general (not easy to explain). Did you notice it ?
This makes even more of it :

A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W

This means that all shields are connected at the A connector, also connected at the A connector itself,
and that only the Inner shield is connected to the B connector (middle and outer float).

Well ... This is the fourth day that I am listening to this, always thinking it is wrong somewhere. But is it ?

My initial impression is that it makes all too low on volume. Second thinking learns that again more dynamic range is at play. But it is not about this ...
I have a continuous feeling that things play inside out for phase, or whatever it is exactly. And talking about a version of spooky ... this is now Twin Peaks sound in most of the tracks which lend themselves to that somewhat. I just played Roger Waters - Is this the Life we really want, from of track 06. All Twin Peaks stuff. And was it that before ? not that I recall.

What I recognize with this config as well, is that the tone/frequency has a musicality. It is not as stable as I know it from familiar tracks. As if vibrato is added (not flanger). Very strange because I wouldn't know how that would work.

Albums which, again, lend themselves for it, sound like 20 minute Edgar Froese tracks from ancient history. I never play them any more because it is always the same. So how come that a. such tracks now start to sound like that and b. it only intrigues ?

Yesterday I played Neil Young's Zuma and Cortez The Killer never sounded so emotional (of Young) like this time. It was the very very best version of it I heard ever, and I play this for something like more than 45 years, maybe once per 2-3 months. I am serious.

So why is it wrong ? I don't know ! But is seems to me and my ears that at times all fades away to too few of most (only leaving one profound sound of melody).
Help ?
Why is this the 4th day with this without the slightest idea of wanting to try the next config ?

Peter

Hi Peter,

I don't have the Mach III or the Lush^2, but what you wrote above reminds me of the changes that came with the Phisolator.  The pitch dropped a little compared to what we were getting with the Intona and everything became more calm and less compressed.  I attributed this rightly or wrongly to a lowering of general "noise" in the playback and greatly appreciated the change.

So that is the idea that I get when I read your description above...more calmness, or quietness and room to hear more of the dynamic range.  Of all the descriptions that you have used so far this is the one that is most likely to get me to invest in yet another damn pc and usb cable.

Cheers,

Anthony

The pitch dropped a little ... But how can that be ?

I forgot to mention something from the Zuma album and Cortez The Killer (or Danger Bird because I played that too) : talking guitars.
I came at this right after I posted yesterday because I heard it again in an other song and we discussed it over here. So a guitar can talk to you (intentionally through its player) mostly via the wah-wah pedal; without it it can also be done to some extent. So all the "wah" ever so much comes forward suddenly. Try The Yes Album - Yours is No Disgrace and you have it almost throughout (if the lead guitar plays).

The wah is a (fairly fast) change of pitch but also a change of clarity, mostly from dark to light (so to speak). Wait ... : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wah-wah_pedal
Maybe someone can make something of this. I will read it myself, later.

I so much recall that the Neil Young track(s) suddenly were addressed to me and were loaded with an other dimension of data towards me, only because the play of the guitar was this other/new messenger.

What I was also listening for yesterday, after posting, was whether this now again was another level of "analogue". Thus, more into that again. I didn't want to listen for that, but at some stage it happened that I heard it and from then on I started watching it. Right now (during this typing) I come to that again because of recalling distinctly that guitar speaking (to you) from a way long time ago. Thus, a fairly normal thing but it just has disappeared from my music playback. So, was that LP perhaps ? (and I am not talking about one with the hole not in the middle, that also changing pitch ... hmm ... :scratching:).

Anthony, if possible, talk a bit more. Let your imagination flow, if possible. How can this be ...

Peter

PS: What I also intended to write yesterday, with the Roger Waters album, is that it now suddenly was "ultimate psychedelic". Thus, while I find Roger Waters too much playing the sounds from the past (and for that it not being really new music) the added sauce now suddenly was Obscured By Clouds psychedelia in Twin Peaks format. Really a whole new level of presentation but so much of it, that I can't imagine that the shield of a cable is doing this.

Let's not forget, this "wah" presentation is only since the latest configuration of the Lush^2. It has a directly connected inner shield and a middle and outer shield that connect at the source (PC) to the inner shield, while these two are left open at the other end. Hmm ...

If I recall properly you and I talked about it at the time somewhere in the forum.  It is a while back now but swapping out the Intona for the Phisolator did lower the pitch a little.  More accurately it may have been that the noise or sound of the Intona was removed or changed for a different one with the Phisolator, but it did happen. 

I've sold mine now, but if you still have yours perhaps stick it back in and listen to the pitch, or what I am calling the pitch.  With the Intona things were a little bit "higher" or tighter strung but with the Phisolator the presentation is more relaxed, calm, like it has all the time in the world and is not in a hurry.

Anyway, that is my memory of the event, and it is also something that I would like more of in my playback, that feeling of infinite dynamic range and effortless control, like there is nothing holding back the flow of things.

The UPS Elves deliverd a Lush^2 this morning  :)

Its way too fast for a fast first post really, but bare with me. After a few hours of run and using settup A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W.

First, runing seems  important the sound is changing "in front of my eyes" as it were. Running in happened with the Lush^1 for me, I just did not get on with it for about about 3 weeks then it ran in and it sounded great. The Lush^2 is changing quickly right now BUT the starting point in terms of sound quality TOTALLY different, the Lush^2 is absolutly brilliant compared to the Lush^1 !

WOW its a game changer, time to recalibrate my expectations of how music played at home can sound. Its that much of a step.

How does it sound just now ?

Detailed, transparent, extended, conveyes emotion, dynamic, less coloured, huge scale - Very real and highly musical.....

What a cable Peter, it's a fantastic achivement, many thanks.

  :soundsgood: :soundsgood:

Nick.

Anyone yet got any views/opinions if how the Lush^2 sounds is totally system dependant?
Or, for instance, for any configuration does connecting the outer shield ends to both A & B ends seems to always enhance/boost the bass or in another configuration always having the outer shield totally isolated seems to always enhance/boost the midrange?
If the latter was the case then this knowledge would be helpful as a good base to start fine tuning the cable for your own unique system.

Tim,

My latest config (see post above somewhere) is IMO merely leaner than the original Lush.

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi Nick

Just confirming: your setup is A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W and not Peter's
A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W?
If so, did you try his shield configuration but found your configuration is better in your system?

Tim hi,

Im using  A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W.
Will give Peter's other config a go. I have been putting some hours on the cable to burn it in so havent tried anything else as yet.

Nick.

I think I found a new "best" again ...
:teasing:

Don't keep us waiting...... :smile:

:drums: :drums: :drums: :NY01: :NY02:

So here we go ...

Day before yesterday I thought to change my as of then config A: B-W-Y-W, B: B-W because no matter how greatly surprising it could be at times, I felt it had to be "wrong" but also and merely, the highs were a that too smeared for my liking. I mean, I know of better situations (regardless Lush^2) with the highs, and then also the conig prior to the just mentioned did that, but too much of it (too white).

So in I went with a fairly random but "just another" A: A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W-Y-R. Thus at the source (A) Inner connected to connector, and at the target (B) all connected to the connector. Well ...
No.
Maybe I am wrong. but from the few similar permutations I tried, I recall that everything which connects at the target end but not on the source end, is odd for sound. Thus, something like : what is connected at the target's end but is not at the source end, kind of literally backfires towards the source end. Mind you, this is a line of thinking I adopt now, hoping for some logical reasoning.
The sound of this is super short and super dry and possibly it could have something, weren't it that the basses become unrecognizable of it and the highs show raspiness (like interrupted 200 times per second). My notes (and you should keep notes too !!) tell that there's also a whole lacking "lower highs" area. And oh, it is the first time on this forum that I am compelled to talk about "lower highs" (whereever that exactly is).

Then a next one came in soon, A: A: B-R, B: B-R. Aha, look, you can see that I now start to think from mere logic reasoning. Thus, instead of working with the Inner connected to the connector(s) I now thought to for a first time use an other - the Outer. Thus, at both ends the Outer connected to the Connector and that's all. It showed.
This should be the most similar to the original Lush, at least to my ears and remembrance. Maybe a tad less special than what I heard from my original Lush, and/but for me outside of the Mach III Audio PC (but I am using the Mach III). Anyway, better than the proposed and supposedly theoretically best Lush^1 resemblance - using the Inner to connect to both connectors. Theoretically because nothing much physically changed to the Lush^1 now, except for all the additional layers of Shield and Isolation.
After hearing this - nothing wrong with this and people should start out with this (read : we should ship the Lush^2 with this, perhaps), I can reason that the setup of the cable could resemble the Lush^1 because the Outermost shield is the one which is connected. So indeed, for the Lush^1 this would be true too (because there is only one shield it would be the Outermost, right ?).
I listened to this config for the next two hours, before the say was over. My idea about it : nothing wrong with it, but most certainly also nothing special with it.

Then yesterday came. Long before the playback session of the evening I had already written down a new A: A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R. And with this, I forced nyself to find configs "with reason". And well, this one is about the thought of balance, and how the Middle shield connects to the both connectors, that shield in itself protected by and surrounded with the two other shields. The "protected by" is quite explicit, because if those two, Inner and Outer would also connect to the connectors, it wouldn't be protective (in my electrical view and thinking). Thus, both the Inner and Outer shields just open ended at both sides, BUT connected to each other and thus not to the Middle shield.
And really, at the first hit (I am serious !) you can hear it is right.

This one, so far, has it all. It shows superb bass which also sings (see earlier post). It has highs which are "normal", but which somehow manage to squeeze out even more detail all over (read : actually continuously and not only "occasionally"). All, really all contains new sounds while at the same time music as such is playing (this latter is THE task). The electric butterflies are there, meaning that the spookiness is all over there again, but this time never in a way that you'd think : right, nice, but this has to be wrong.

What is completely new is what I think exactly lacked at the first config I wrote about in this post : an area of lower highs which now is profound. It makes electric guitars show a super steadiness, opposed to flanger (hopefully it is clear what I mean here). It is also the area where leannes could happen - as I now learned. Something like : if there's a profound top end but right under that there's a relative nothing, we might experience this as lean. Make that the other way around and the sound becomes full, with as key the top end still being there as much as before (or otherwise the stuffed ears feeling becomes profound).

Somehow this config not only comes across as correct all over and balanced all over (which would be the same thing) but also as technically behaving consistently over the whole (audible) frequency range. This in itself would be the same as "balanced" but this latter is only the expression of the behavior (and how we perceive it). Thus, while this shielding is somehow attacking frequency areas, this config attacks all areas similarly, or, does not inluence them similarly (this is about what actually is the culprit in there - which we or at least I don't know yet).

If there is one thing that could be improved upon - after my observation of 3-4 hours of listening to this - it is mentioned now more profound lower highs. I mean, I like that very much, but the toilet test shows that exactly these frequencies are heard best being in the toilet, behind two closed doors down the road.

I will listen to this for several days now (unless something starts to annoy) and for those who like to experiment faster than me, my next one undoubtedly will be this one : A: A: B-Y & W-R, B: W-R. This disconnected the Middle from the target (B) connector and leave it open. The "protection" of the other two shields remain as they were.

Peter

....

All,

Everybody who was in last Friday's (Sept 14) shipment, received a config where the A and B connectors were swapped against what was promised on the withgoing paper (which latter also lacked in one (?) occcasion). The config was meant to be like what you see below. Please adjust accordingly because what was delivered was untested and has unknown result.

Apologies for the inconvenience !
Peter

Hi all,

I am contemplating not to post here any more, because I seem to be the only one sharing.

Good idea ?

Regards,
Peter

No

Not a good idea!

 :nea: :nea:

Definitely not a good idea.  I've just got everything set up again to try the various Lush^2 configurations.

A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R

Maybe I was in a hallucinative mood yesterday, but I can't imagine that it can be better than this. Sound it out-ra-ge-ous-ly good.
OK, what is "good" ... maybe I deceive myself ...

The best I could describe it, is that it is about the experience. This is how "hallucinative" comes in. It feels like I put up some musicians in the room, they see my mood (like a DJ does that) and start playing for me the exact way I want it.
All right, this can't be described. It must be felt. Experienced.

Especilly the bass is like never before. It has a power ... unheard. And the strange thing : still of the best quality. Very articulate. More strange : no disco like bass. I mean, something which isn't supposed to sound like disco, should not suddenly be disco (I made such a remark on one of the other configurations).

In the midst of all this power is the somehow excelling highs. Nothing muffled because of too much bass. All superbly expressing. Possibly this is because those "lower highs" (upper mid) seems to be less profound with this config. It creates a more black distance to the highs, as it seems.

The most noticable is the palpability this now shows. As if each hit - no matter how transient and subsequently fast - received the room to add large envelope and decay.

Actually it is a bit crazy (again that word, I see :innocent:); we'd say that even the largest DSP would not be able to change the sound like this does now. What ever happened to PeterSt's "the USB cable won't matter much, if anything". Yeah, those good old days of the $1 cable.
Today we toy with shields. Say again ? yea, shields. Kirk is dead but USS Enterprise's shielding start to be under our control. The Trek continues.



Peter

Peter,

Definatly keep posting here.
The CA thread is interesting but can be fustrating sometimes.

A lot of folks here use NOSs so here there are more likley to be relevant observations for NOS systems here.

Having said this, I cannot contribute for a week or so as Im half way through a PC power supply build  :( but will be back to this topic when the PC is running again.

Cheers Nick.

Peter,

Even though I haven't purchased the Lush^2 yet, all these posts will be valuable to look though again once I have one.

Please keep up with your posts and observations on the changes in sound with each different configuration.

Best,

David

I tried a few configs today.

1. A: B-W-Y-R, B: open

Wow, what a crazy sound. Almost holographic. Very appealing for first few seconds, but then sort of disorientating. A bit vague - not anchored.

(It's a similar feeling I have when I'm sitting in the aisle on a plane - I really don't like not having a reference (being able to look outside the window and see the ground) when taking off and landing especially.)

2. A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W

More solid. But still slightly unnaturally holographic.

3. A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-R

I think similar to 2, but I need to go back and check.

4. A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-Y

I had a slight preference for this over 2 and 3, but I really need to go back and check.

5. A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-Y-R

This is giving me the most pleasant sound. All traces of an 'unnaturally holographic' sound have gone. Just a really nice, balanced and anchored sound. So this is what I'll stick with for now.

I really need to do a lot more listening. But for now, it seems to me that having any shields connected at A but floating at B introduces an unnaturalness to the sound. This seems to become progressively more pronounced the more shields you connect in this way.

When I have more time I'll try some other configs.

Mani.

Mani,

Did you try Peter's last config: A:B,W,R,Y  B: B,W,R?  I've been listening to this for a couple of days, and the sound is mesmerizing, and not at all unnatural.  At least two friends who have listened recently have looked around while the music is playing to essentially ask: where did that come from? 

More soon...

Ramesh

Hi Ramesh, yes I had been using A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-R for quite a few days before yesterday and was very happy with it.

If you think about it, my current A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-Y-R is very close to Peter's config - it just 'closes' the Y shield too. Yes, this seems to take away some of the magic from the sound, but replaces it with even more solidity.

I'm trying to figure out what effect having a shield connected at A but floating at B has on the sound, and whether this sounds natural or artificial. What I'm finding (I think) is that if you start with A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-Y-R, and then progressively float W, W&Y, W&Y&R at the B end, you will hear a progressive increase in this 'unnaturally holographic sound' that I mentioned earlier. Having just one floating, as in Peter's config, seems to provide just enough of the effect for it to sound interesting and not to bother.

This is all conjecture at this point. Lots more playing around and listening required.

Mani.

Mani,

There might be a difference experimenting with the Mach II vs Mach III. My experience is that despite the big difference the Lush^2 can make, the most astounding improvement I've had is with the upgrade to the Mach III. There is no way to overstate how much the Mach III transforms the quality of SQ.

Ramesh

I don't doubt this for a second Ramesh, and I'll no doubt get hold of a Mach III at some point. But for now, the Mach II is fine... especially considering that my Mach II is no ordinary Mach II (see signature ;))

Mani.

I'm back to A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-R.

My previous A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-Y-R sounds too 'dense', too 'thick', and as a result, just too uninteresting.

I can't believe what a difference floating the Y shield at the B connector makes. I hope someone can figure out exactly what's going on because this simple change changes the sound completely.

Mani.

Hi Mani - Thank you very much for your reporting. Appreciated !

Cheers,
Peter

I received my Lush^2 almost a week ago and let in play for about 10 hours before I started listening.

I copied the current “status quo” A: B-W-Y-R  / B: B-W-R for a start and try some other configurations when I’m in the mood for it, but hearing how it sounds now, I’m in no hurry.

It’s hard to avoid clichés to describe the sound. The first thing I noticed was a kind of “silence” in the background, which results in hearing everything better across the whole spectrum. And that results in a more natural and convincing sound. Not only with good quality recordings, but also average recordings from the seventies a much more enjoyable now.

It has a kind of addictive quality now.

And no Mach II, III or whatever here, just a simple DIY Audio PC (see sig).

Peter:  :thankyou: 

I stop now, music calling.

Regards,
Stanley

:) :)

Hi Peter,

a few weeks ago it became harder and harder to get my NOS1a
recognised by my Mach III when they were connected with my Lush^2. I had to try more nad more often, plug the Lush^2 in and out and so on...
With other USB cables like my Lush^1 and others connecting the two devices was never a problem.

Finally, when my Lush^2 completly refused to work, I messured this Lush^2 with my multimeter and found out that there was a contact between one of the inner USB pins with the outer metal (connected to the black cable) of the PC-side plug.
That made me curious and I cut this plug open to have a look inside. The 4 inner pin cables are kind of crimped together (including their plastic shield). After I had bent apart this crimping the contact failure described above was gone. My Lush^2 is working again, but connecting the two devices is still not as easy as with other USB cables.
And I got the impression, that the sound is smearing now when this Lush^2 is used. This impression may also be caused by my new speakers though.
Therefore I play music with my old Lush^1 most of the times now, what works and sounds great with my new SQ settings, what I posted today.

Peter, what would you suggest to do? Shall I send you this broken and maybe not well repaired Lush^2 ?

Kind regards
Richard

Destructive you ...
:)

Richard, we will send you a new one. Same length ?

Best regards,
Peter

Hey hey ...

A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R

This has been the configuration for many months. Maybe from of today we can change it to this one :

A:B-W-Y, B:B-W

with thanks to kurb1980.

Unless it is me or my ears or electrical charge from outer space ... this is such a refreshing one ... hard to believe it is real. Many things in there I never experienced before.

First odd thing : I never noticed a real change on day one of listening to this. Maybe the wrong music for it, hard to tell. But this goes in combination with day two, where it was one large jaw dropping experience (this was yesterday).

Odd: Bass sounds like with too much energy, but at second thought and "seeing through" it is about a layer under what you here foremost, that layer implying extra-low frequency.

Odd: When walking through the middle of the sweet spot (crossing the room from left to right and back), in the middle there's a clear increase of volume. I did not check with the SPL meter, but I guess it will be easily detectable. Anyway, like all adds up on the sweet spot.
I know, this may be logical to happen, but I never noticed it, and the increase is really quite much (feels like 6dB).

Odd: The depth of the sound stage is as flat as can be.
Huh ?
Yes, but in combination with a sound stage which never has been wider.
Huh^2 ?
Before trying it out, try to envision that. To me it seems impossible from theories. Still it is so. There is no depth but there is infinite width. And the most troubling issue : I can not detect where this bothers me. I mean, the speakers are not detectable anyway (and that with this flat stage ??) and it just is a most pleasant presentation.

There is detail in an again lower area which brings forward all kinds of sounds and voices and mumbling and a 100 things I never heard before. This also does a lot to cymbals and percussion instruments. I am also confident that this attributes to the (music) reality level ... not-normal.

But supposed you know my way of thinking, something quite else is going on ...

I (or we) already know of what happens to the "accuracy" as such, when the stage is made wider by what I call unnatural means. The sugar cubes are an example of that. You end up in a church but in the end all is more vague. The idea ? the energy in the sound waves is spread (by whatever voodoo force :)) and therefore all becomes less accurate (it is torn apart). Get the idea ?
All right. This Lush^2 configuration works a kind of other way around;

The sound stage is wider, true. But the reason now is : all is compressed in a flat space (if I say it is 1 meter deep then I will exaggerate). And notice me dealing with the "energy does not get lost" law of physics. What I plainly hear is this :

All the energy is in this tight space (you could do the math on it, and compare with a depth of e.g. 3-4 meters as how it was previously). There it fights for space. This is the buzzing of the bass but which only happens when not listening at the right position. This is also related to the 6dB (?) of higher level which is perceived when being right in the middle (of the speakers) - hence at the sweet spot again. All there beams as should, comes together where intended and "adds up".

If by now you think I really lost it, then be happy as it is and leave it be. :swoon:

All the again extra detail which is there now, comes from the far better accuracy because of the more compact sound (more compressed ?). Much more collides and much more literally energizes.

Warning : I have the clear idea that this now requires the Custom Filter Low setting, although I did not try plain Arc Prediction (each second of trialling things feels like a complete waste of time - haha).
The other and more important warning is about letting this config be for a first day and only judge at the second (it is too hard to imagine that I just missed this all on the first day).

I noticed that it was impossible for me to judge the quality of the "sound" because the music itself attracted too much (this is always a good thing, IMO). However, I was continuously and throughout pointed at the new sounds I heard everywhere. In amount, think twice as many (I am serious).
I coincidentally started out with some old hit (Turtles - Happy Together (1967)) and was open mouthed from the super clear sound and how undistortedly beautiful the lead singer brought this song to me. A-ma-zing. And with a channel separation of which I readily knew I never heard it before.

An other odd thing is that while on one side there's super speed exhibiting, there's an unsurpassed palpability at the same time. Listen to the snare drums and you'll understand what I mean. Full with body, never sharp and just how it sounds in reality.

:seeyou:
Peter

I now think that people can save the trouble of trying this
A:B-W-Y, B:B-W.

At the third day I got totally crazy of too much energy. Too much buzzing with it - at least how I perceive it.
Because this seems highly related to some burn-in process (or maybe groundloop build-up ?) I will try it tonight once again, but if it starts out the same as how it did yesterday, I will revert to
A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R
within20 seconds.

Yesterday it was literally killing. Super super tiring, although no harsh sound anywhere. Explosive energy. I don't know what really happens ...

Peter

Yeah, I already determined this (edit: actually not exactly the same, but similar) back in September:


Mani.

Mani hi,

What Lush setting were we listing to yesterday at yours ?

Nick.

Mani, I don't think that you referred to your config which was "not exactly the same" and you merely refer to your judgment, right ?
I mean, your config was not the same in any of your listed trials ... (that I can see).

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi,

Just to add another combo into the mix (Im not sure if this has been visited by someone before).

I have been using A: B-W-R-Y, B: B-W-Y for ages now. I think I got to this setup  trying to apply  A: B-W-R-Y, B: B-W-R in the dark and could not see the colours properly  :)

For me  A: B-W-R-Y, B: B-W-Y brings a very livley but natural sound. Getting great presence and stage with excellent base weight speed and pitch.

Regards,
Nick.

Edit - notation was not the standard format.

Hahahaha - That could be the best way !

Nick, I will try that (A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-Y) for sure.
Thanks a lot,
Peter

You see correctly. I thought that I had tried it, but I hadn't. (I will do though!)

Mani.

Hi Nick, we were listening to A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-R.

(The Lush^2 is 4-5 weeks old, so I suppose we can assume it's settled down?)

Mani.

Thanks Mani,

Might be with a try with A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-Y. Gives a very nice sound here but quite livley compared : B-A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R.

Nick.

Nick,

Have been listening with A: B-W-Y-R and B: B-W-Y this evening, especially to classical music--Bruckner particularly.  Really nice.  At least for this music, I think I prefer this setting to B: B-W-R.

Good find.

Ramesh

After listening some more, and switching to Charlie Haden Tokyo Adagio, I think B:B-W-Y sounds a little unnatural--too many "resonances" and echoes.  More listening needed.

Ramesh hi,

I think I might be able to understand your impressions so far. Extrapolating from listening to Manis system last week (Stealth III, blaxius^2 B:B,W,R) I can understand how the B:B,W,Y could sound a bit etched and forward:

The blaxius^2 is VERY transparent and introduces a life and a joy de vivre to the sound (I will be ordering a set as I just can't listen to my system easily since hearing the cables at Manis  :( ).

The Stealth III is more prone to mid / upper mid resonances than my PC.

I suspect that B: B,W,Y "works" here at the moment because this setting in part overcomes the relative darkness of my Blaxius 1 and my PC dosent reinforce the more forward presentation.

I am really looking forwads to listening again when I have Blaxius^2s in my system. For sure I know that I cannot reliably do more work on my PC or Lush^2 settings until the the cables are in.

Thanks for feeding back your thoughts. Its going to be fun seeing if my Lush^2 settings need to change with the introduction on the new cables.

Regards,
Nick.

All,

Today I will be into my 6th day of

A:B-Y, B:

(indeed nothing connected on the B side)

I keep on explicitly noticing how natural this one is. Detail is still exhorbitant, width is normal, depth is again relatively shallow. I suppose this latter contributes to "naturalness". And if my theory hols that sound should not be spread too much (like the width is OK now) then a bit of less depth may encourage accuracy ? (naturalness)

It won't be easy for me to take this one out again, so I am not sure when to test something new (or back to "the one with consensus" first, for that matter).

Peter

Just tried some comparisons between the "consensus" configuration A:B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R, and Peter's latest A: B-Y, B:.  I have to say I prefer the consensus configuration.  The new configuration sounds pleasant and detailed, but lacks dynamics and emotion.  Maybe this comes off as "natural", but it is a natural that can start to border on flat.

I tried a few more configurations, some based on the discussions on the CA forum, but none of them is better than the consensus with my system and XXHE configuration.

My only dissatisfaction with the consensus configuration is in playing dense, complex, orchestral music.  This could be a problem with classic music recordings in digital format.  Many are mastered badly.  I find the playback a bit on the harsh, scratchy side--especially trumpets and massed strings.

Thank you, Ramesh !

Btw, Ramesh, it seems evident that the lower dynamics (but this is mere higher frequency stuff) cause the depth to deminish. I am just observing after I read your post ...
Quite similar to adding F-M highs to your Orelo MKII speaker (adds spaciousness).

Regards,
Peter

Peter,

In addition to the difference in HF content, there is something about the consensus configuration where the "attack" on notes: piano, drums particularly seems more accurate.  Notable listening to Keith Jarrett on piano.  One album worth using for tests is the incredible "Birds Requiem" by Dhafer Youssef

R.

Hi Peter,

about a week ago I sent you the following email:


I don‘t know if you got this email, because I didn‘t get an answer and no new lush^2 arrived so far.

Kind regards
Richard

Hi Richard !

Hmm ... The past week I thought of this two times and on the wrong moment (like driving the car). Point is, I guess, the order is by now from 5-6 weeks or so ago (so it went out of my sight) and for the same amount of weeks you also don't transfer the 45 you mention there yourself. So there too, no trigger. And UPS just left, thus too bad again.
Btw, I also asked you to send me something (5-6 weeks ago). Nothing to be seen yet.

So ? So by now we could make it formal ... your turn first ?
haha

Kind regards and thanks,
Peter

Hi Peter,

after being skiing for a week in the Alps, I plugged in the new replacement Lush^2 right now.  Ohh, it´s so much better than my old (maybe too long) Lush.
Thank‘s a lot, Peter!

I feel really bad now that I haven‘t sent you back the broken one yet... and the money too...
I will do it tomorrow... promised!

Kind regards
Richard

Haha !
Thank you, Richard.

Peter

I found the "consensus" configuration A:BWYR, B:BWR not quite right with large orchestral works.  Have been listening to A:BW&YR, B:BW for a few hours tonight.  This configuration seems better with large orchestral works.  Large string sections sound fuller, not scratchy, and somehow more coherent.  Also imaging seems more precise with placement of orchestra.  Will keep this as default for now, and come back to consensus configuration in a week or so and see how it feels.

A:B-W&Y-R, B:B-W

I am playing with this for something like 10 days now and I love it. Btw, this was IIRC the 2nd configuration I tried judged it as "Super Sound" but went on to a next (eager as I was last year when the Lush^2 was new). 5 weeks ago or so I announced that I should revisit this one, and so I finally did.

The reason for going there was a different one than "just do it"; I did it because I suffered from a too white sound (cymbals) and found the description to this configuration which told that the cymbals receive more color of it. Aha ...
And that worked out.

My story is more complicated than being about the Lush^2 alone (I will write a post elsewhere about this) but I am quite confident that everybody should try this config.

Peter

There :
Re: Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear Power Supply (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=4013.msg44053#msg44053).

Hi All
Reading about the developments of the Lush^2 sounds very exciting . A simple question . If used directly between a NAS - (I-O data Soundgenic) and the USB Class 2 input of a Streamer/DAC/Preamp (Cambridge Audio Edge) ... should i expect great things ? or better to still use the network via a Cat7 cable. Which option offers the greater potential if all other factors are taken care of (linear power supply / network) ? Thankyou
Mark (China)

Hi there Mark (and welcome here),

Personally I would not expect anything much of that. But then there also have been times that I was pretty sure a USB cable could not matter much. :swoon:

You may be helped more by the ET^2 (Ethernet cable of the same ^2 principle) ?

Kind regards,
Peter

Many thanks Peter for the advice

:)

Hi there All,

Since 3 weeks I am using this configuration for my Lush^2 :

A:B-R & W-Y, B:B-R

Although one's head can be twisted because of the different configurations and perceptions, I am pretty sure that this one is special in one area at least : UNannoyance. Or IOW, there is nothing that ever annoys with this configuration.

What's also with this one is what I started to call "nice splashing". Could be new for audiophile phenomena, but what I mean with it is easy : when a cymbal is hit, it develops its sound, and that developing goes ever so nice with this config. I'm not saying it is "so real" and such, but merely that it keeps occurring that someone hits a splash cymbal where previously it did not jump out at all (that I ever noticed).

Does bass excel ? I think so. But in a mere unnoticeable fashion or something. It *is* special because it is firm (very firm actually). But the key thing with this config should be that it does not disturb. I mean, bass all so often can be regarded as too much or too much lacking or it buzzes a bit and maybe more (annoyances). Not so now at all. Much more music and mush less attention is required to the technical aspects of the reproduction.

The detail ? I would swear this is more again. Maybe it is related to said splashing, but the highs seem to be rendered with more resolution, which in the end makes the detail more palpable and therefore from a next order of beautifulness : all is ultra smooth and with that make jump out the mid detail. Thus no screaming of sharp highs, but a kind of the opposite with is harder to explain in the midst of the clearly more detail. All less fake or something. And btw just using normal Arc Prediction filtering in XXHighEnd.

Much much sparkle. And I think this is because of more body to it.

Happy listening with your new Lush^2. Haha.
Peter

This may be my first tweak in many months. Will let you know how I get on... if I ever get around to it.

Mani.

I've been using this configuration over the last two weeks or so--having seen it in Peter's post on CA.  Really the best so far!! at least for the kinds of music I listen to, and with the Orelos.

I gave the Lush^2 configuration

A:B-R & W-Y, B:B-R

a try for a number of listening nights, but it didn’t satisfy me at all and in fact it started to irritate and for me there was no involvement in the music anymore. What Peter called “splashing” is the very thing that annoys in my setup.
Too much “sssshhhhh”.

Going back to

A:B-W-Y-R; B:B-W-R)

brought back gentle highs, deep articulate bass and all-round musical enjoyment.

The difference with what others experience can be related to different amps and speakers and/or the audio PC of course.

But worth well to experiment yourself.

Regards,
Stanley

Thank you very much, Stanley.
Peter

Hi, I am interested in purchasing a Lush^2 usb cable for my digital front end which will consist of the following components:

Melco N1ZH (1st generation)>Lush^2 usb cable>Iso regen>Uptone Audio's USPCB A>B Adapter>Chord Qutest Dac

My questions are:

1.  How long should the usb cable be to maximize performance?  (In terms of being able to physically connect the Melco to the Iso regen, I will need .5mm.)

2.  How should I configure the Lush^2's connectors to get the best sound out of the cable given my components?

Thanks.

Hi there,

There is no real optimized length that I / we know of. It is only that we know from the original Lush that 3m could be problematic. I don't recall any Lush^2 of 3m going out ever.


If you need .5m / 50cm then it will be 70cm what you should obtain (it is either 40cm or 70cm or longer). And please don't "squeeze" things into a virtual 40cm while you already need 50cm because the 40cm Lush^2 is not easily bendable when it is already too short.


No worries because the Lush^2 comes preconfigured with the setting (as it seems without exception) everybody likes best. So you don't need to do anything. However, you *can* do it when for example someone else comes up with a best new setting. And as you may have read on the Net, some times that happens. Usually it doesn't last for more than a couple of weeks (you'll go back to the initial setting) but at least you can "be there" and try too. Or eventually try out things for yourself / on your own. And next report that *you* found a better configuration. :)


Don't forget to test the Lush^2 also at the position of the USPCB. It is quite common sense that this will be for the better. Of course this is up to you, and I only mention it because it seems counter-intuitive (how can a cable sound better than an adapter).

Regards,
Peter

As alot of people use this forum to get information on how to optimize their purchases, I feel the need to make this correction as it reflects how I intend to set up my front end:

Melco N1ZH (1st generation)>Uptone Audio's USPCB A>B Adapter>Iso regen>Lush^2 usb cable>Chord Qutest Dac

Thanks, Peter!

Haha, were we faster than light there or weren't we ?
Thank YOU.

Regards,
Peter

@PeterST

I have had the lush^2 cable for 8-9 months.  The DAC I use is the benchmark dac2 hgc with latest firmware.  From what I read this DAC upsamples everything to 211kHz and use a HB filter.  I am struggling to find a setting on the cable what will give a sense of space "air."  After much experimenting I switched back to the A:BW&YR B:BW after listening don't get me wrong it sounds good but its missing that WOW factor that draws me in "musical."  Any ideas?
 

My advice is sell the Benchmark, that's what I did. This DAC does not upsample anything. Its top input capability is 24/192. John Siau(Benchmark) has been left well behind in DAC advancements. Even the DAC 3 is behind and still 24/192 and over priced for what it is. In saying that it was a good DAC in the day!!!

After this rant I did use the old Lush cable on this DAC and it worked fine, easily better than the Benchmark standard USB cable provided. The Lush 2 is another step up from the Lush. Mind you I don't own one yet.

Robert

Hi Kurb,

Although I feel that Robert can very well be right ("that was from back then") it still should not be the answer. At least it wouldn't be a nice answer.

I won't say you sound a bit desperate, but you do. :)

I myself am back to the "consensus" one, after I could tweak things elsewhere and the other config(s) started to sound somewhat exaggerated (I think I am not the only one with that idea of it). Thus I use A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R again.
And nothing else, so only the Lush^2.

The psychological problem I have myself somewhat, is that all about "air" and such can relatively easily dialed (or out) in with XXHighEnd. Of course Robert has just been suggesting that for him that did not work any more (or at least something did not, with his Benchmark) but still I'd like to give the advice to try it.
It is per se *not* so that we all with Lushes suddenly need XXHighEnd. But you complain (between quotes) about something which should be "settable".

Notice that air mainly emerges from more emphasis to higher frequency. But it is not necessarily natural and for sure it will be more difficult to the system as a whole. So Yes, the Lush^2 has these almost explicit settings for that too. But it is not said that this works out for you (and/or your DAC or speakers etc.).

Let me know how things fare. You did a lot of experimenting and sharing, I think - so you deserve to be as satisfied as others using your data. Right ?

Kind regards,
Peter

Okay...i did switch back to the configuration you noted above.  It sounds so far refined controlled I need to give it a week or two to come to a full consensus.  I been testing interconnects trying out ultra low capacitance balanced xlr’s as well I have auditioned 5 so far with one more on the way that has a 13pf per 1ft. 

I am now a few weeks into my experience with this cable and would recommend A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W

Subjectively, it is in the same ballpark as the consensus, but with less bass presence. There is a relative increase in the apparent presence of the lower midrange, which serves to project the 'soundstage' more obviously, but without anything artificial about it and certainly without more HF 'air'. There is something less flattering about this presentation, although I think there is clearer separation between instruments.

Of course, this sound may change after a 'settling in' period, but it's worth a try as a subtle move from the consensus for those who enjoy the endless chase. Suck it and see.

I should clarify, however, that I still prefer the consensus in my system: I am yet to find another that renders vocals as smoothly and naturally, even if the low end is arguably slightly too full (in my view). The chase goes on, of course.

After trying many different configurations today, I am amazed by how much smoother and refined the consensus sounds than every other arrangement. It is not a subtle difference between it and all others, whereas most other configs sound very similar to each other. The particular bass weight I hear is only in contrast to other arrangements, so I now like to think that the 'consensus' is perhaps the truthful one, given that every other aspect of the presentation is so 'right'.

Maybe it depends on the high frequency response, also the low frequency response (as you may know I have that a kind of ridiculous here, although 10 others on this forum have the same) while the speed of the system also does a thing or two. In other words … hmm … no, they don't all sound the same to me. Not at all. But there are only a few worth while further investigating *while* we indeed always seem to come back on that "consensus" one.

Btw, what I noticed is that against the previous config I used (not sure it was mentioned in here as the last one, but I think so) is that the "consensus" config, is almost mono compared to that other. It gets used to after a few hours, but the difference on that is crazy already.

Or what about that ultra flat one (like in one ft only) with totally crazy width.
So the differences are in those aspects as well (or even profoundly).

Peter

Peter, the difference between 'similar' and 'the same' can tend towards infinity - my point is only that there is something special about the consensus that I do not hear in any other configuration so far. My taste is always for less obvious bass and high end - a midrange freak, if you like. Therefore, the quality I am looking for is perhaps precisely this more mono presentation (presumably because of the less 'projected' spatial cues, which are both subjectively and objectively (https://people.finearts.uvic.ca/~aschloss/course_mat/MUS%20511%20/articles/An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Psychology%20of%20Hearing%20by%20Brian%20Moore%206th%20Edition.pdf) higher-frequency-related phenomena, and I dislike any sense of hyped higher frequencies).

If anyone knows another 'dark' config, please post it here, as it is those that I am not really finding aside from the consensus. The annoying thing is that I don't know whether the unique smoothness I get from the consensus owes to the fact that it is the only one that I have used enough to have 'burned it in'.

Peter,

Long time no see  ;)

Could you please put a new photo of the best new setting?

Thanx

Hey Gerard!

If you ask me, there is no best new setting. The one with "consensus" is still, well, that.
It is a bit difficult for me to drag in the picture of that again, as we are out on vacation and I don't have everything at hand here.

Kind regards,
Peter

Here you go:

(https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1bLf2_MCrYSwvhi3hHeIL0qM7u7Wj6YW5)

(https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1sbfGfwwRdyqsrZhpzBp8h7P6-sdk42Tl)

Thanx....

But first i have to let other things work...

Grtz Gerard

Tried the configuration below and it is now my favorite.
In my system it is the most "analogue" sounding.  It is smooth with hardly any digital glare.  Voices are natural sounding. Bass is not quite as tight but still very musical.  Everything just sounds right. 

Question:
When experimenting with different configurations do you have to turn your equipment off? or can you change configurations while music is playing?

Thanks :)   

It seems we have very similar subjective experiences to this configuration.

it is fine to change config 'online' and powered up with music playing; there will be no clicks or pops, unless you move the cable enough to disrupt the USB transfer at the source or destination. However, I personally recommend trying whole hours at a time in each config rather than rapid A/Bing, which becomes so confusing as to mislead after a handful of changes.

Please experiment and report back!

Interesting …
I would never do it during playing, because chances are very fair that this is about ground loops ("somewhere") and that these are not broken when music plays (current is flowing through the signal cables). Then you stop playing, the groundloop changes (or just emerges because of that !) and next you press Play and it will sound different than prior to pressing stop a minute ago.
This can be so. And this I wouldn't do it.

Peter

Ah, that would explain why I heard a difference after stopping and starting. Intriguing, indeed.

Really so ? And not *after* I told my little story ?

Really so - my impression is that it takes a while for the character of the configuration to 'settle in'. I +think+ it takes several minutes, though changes might be perceptible before then. Of course, this protraction might be psychological rather than electrical in nature.

I've bit the bullet and bought the Lush 2. After two weeks at configuration it arrives with A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R which certainly improved over the two weeks from new. I went back to original Lush cable and surprisingly its signature is similar but Lush 2 has more music information. I wouldn't call this change huge but none the less is there.

I have now changed to this setting from The Audiophile Style, General Forum, Lush^2 topic: TANF (A: xWYxxx, B: xWYRxx).
 
This certainly also needs some running in and has improved after a week. I listen to Spotify to find new music and it most certainly has improved the sound from this lofi source quite remarkably making it listenable for longer.
 
Anyway more listening to be done. Some of you may not be aware of this new configuration but worth trying. Has anyone else tried this and how did you find the sound?

I can't go back to original Lush, Lush ^2 is certainly a worthwhile improvement. Now where is XX 2.11? 

Robert

Hi Robert,

For me this implied a too much balance towards the highs. However, I lasted for 6 weeks or so with it. In the end I found myself too much tweaking with other things (including 2.11 - sorry :-)) and ended up annoyed too much.

Thank you very much for sharing !
Peter

Yes hard for me to say in this short time. Have you gone back to A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R?

Certainly bass seemed restricted using TANF, highs extended though with XXhighend but on Spotify bass is almost too much.

Robert

Just made a discovery I did not have TANF jumper connections correct at all. I didn't realise jumpers are in fact connected internally.

Currently trying this A:xWYRxx B:xWYRxx per Larry's suggestion AS site. Is this Cubed JSSG 360?

This certainly works for way better sound but have not compared to shipped config. I had no bass with incorrect TANF compared to now.

Can you clarify A: BWYR, B: BWR as shipped please.
From photo on supplied sheet A: BWYRxx, B: BWRxxx. Where x has no connections for A. But B: BWR(xx)x, two bracket x's are joined and last is not?
None of pictorial pictures show this shipped connection I believe? Photo a little hazy to my eyes of "B" jumpers.

Robert

Hi Robert,

I will try to make something of this tomorrow.

Regards,
Peter

Robert,

For me (so mind you, for me) the jumpers don't do anything, until I can confirm myself that they do. I really have no time to sort it out, because it just takes too many days to carefully listen and I have more important things to listen for (like 2.11 new stuff).

The jumpers are there for protection only, and what ever picture you may run into from my hand, the jumpers could be on it randomly or even lacking.

Additionally you can not make any obtrusive connections with the jumpers.

You can bridge pins with them (free pins assumed, depending on the wire config applied), or you may just put on a jumper side ways, you may leave the pin(s) blank because no jumper covers them … it may all make a difference for SQ. But it is for you guys to find out, with "The Attorney" in the lead (as it appears).
As I said over there, everything and all may act as antenna with includes blank pins, or covered by jumper which immediately extends the antenna. The logic in it is that all is about antenna working in the first place and the shields which prevent it (more or less depending on the configuration), or just allow it (same). What happens for real we can't tell, unless someone measures it (I don't think I can with absolute measure).

Best regards,
Peter

Peter I just need to clarify the connections for the config you sent with the cable. Perhaps a new photo. Nothing more. Robert

Here you go :

Thanks Peter it has come clear for me now as simple as it was, I think I thought it was not simple. Anyway current setting sounding excellent.

Robert

I purchased a Lush^2 last year. I originally had a lot of trouble getting it to work in my system, connecting an utraRendu to an IsoRegen/Auralic Vega DAC. Alex from Uptone suggested that I change the order to uR/IsoRegen=>Lush^2=>Auralic. It worked immediately and I had many months of listening pleasure.

A few weeks ago I had to disconnect everything to re-position some components. I have not been able to get it working again. The uR simply doesn't "see" the DAC. I've tried everything I can think of such as powering down/ up components, different place of the cable, etc. Nothing works. Does anyone have any ideas? TIA.

Let me think about this a little ... I have had similar, gave up on it, while only later it sprung to my mind what might have happened. But right now I forgot what that was !

A normal USB cable still works with that same chain ?

Peter

Yes, the system works with other USB cables. I'm currently using a Nordost with and without the Isoregen.

And does it coincidentally work with all shields connected at both ends ?
Do notice that the sequence of connecting and/or switching on of devices, remains important.

PS: I hope you work in all circumstances with the same (isolating) switch setting of the ISORegen. I mean, that that's excluded from being the source of your "sudden" problems.
A hint could also be that something which is working "keeps the current flowing". Which is different from the necessity to set up this current flow; it may take different paths from the first time (long ago now) when you got it working. That switch could be an example ... change the switch position - it may start to work, and without shutting off anything, you might change the switch position and it keeps on working.

I have only used the configuration as shipped. I will try connecting everything.

I have tried every possible power up/down permutation.

I have not changed the Isoregen switch but will give it a shot.

Thanks for the suggestions. By the way, the Lush^2 is much more enjoyable than the significantly more expensive Nordost cable.

*if* it works ...

Btw, I know of exactly *one* situation where it wouldn't work, but worked with all shields connected. Really, one only. But you seem to be more special because it workED. So in my view this has to be some environmental thing.

Please consider newly obtained stuff since you got it working in the first place (but never disconnected). This include light dimmers and the lot.
You can ask Alex C. - this all matters (but not meaning to bother him with this).

Please remember, the last time I tried, I too could not get it to work anymore, WHILE it has worked before.
And the sad thing : in some aftermath I found the possible reason ... which I thus forgot.

Peter,

Not sure why, but I got it to work.

My set up was uR=>audio quest dragonfly=>nordost usb=>isoregen=>auralic DAC. I simply hot swapped in the Lush^2 while leaving the dragonfly in the uR and the isoregen in the DAC. I got an immediate connection that continues to work.

Thanks again. Cheers.

Yea, see ? That changes the start-up sequence. In this case : first start the device(s) (they run now from the source as well as the target) and then connect the cable (it starts to push-thru right away).
Btw, leave it like this and better don't re-attempt. Haha.

Regards and thank you for the feedback.
Peter

Peter taking the lead from the latest Lush 3 settings is there any reason why this would not work removing jumpers from both ends of the Lush 2.

Robert

Hi there Robert,

(this is about this configuration of the Lush^3 :Re: Lush^3 (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=4250.msg44866#msg44866)).

No, I don't think you will find much resemblance with the Lush^3, in your Lush^2 with this confuguration.

The Lush^3 is too differently sounding from the Lush^2 and the reason are the shields (or the extra shield). Thus, even when not connected at all, they "shield", although technically (electrically) this won't be something that a real EE will admit. For example, if I'd change the config you talk about
A:, B:
into
A:W&Y, B:
there is still no shield connected as such, BUT two shiels connect to each other (and that on one side only). This drastically changes the sound. You could try similar with your Lush^2, but I can't predict the result.

Best regards,
Peter

I removed the shield wires from the connectors both ends and have listened all weekend. Replacing connectors today in the last config: A:B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R.

Definitely a difference and I have to say I like no shield connections and went back to this. Something about this sound that is easier, more natural, better balance from bass to vocals. 

I can't compare to Lush 3 but suggest all Lush 2 owners should try this.

Robert

Thank you very much for sharing this, Robert.

With the Lush^3 I am still on a similar "minimalistic" path, which for the Lush^2 would come down to :

A:W-R, B:W-R.


In order to avoid misunderstanding, with that you mean "no wires at all connected".
The jumpers are the little black pieces (in my terminology).
N.b.: In the A:, B: situation, one could also attest that the 5-pin connector(s) are not even there.

Regards,
Peter

Yes no wires connected. Forgot the black jumpers wasn't using them.