XXHighEnd

Hi All,

I suppose a few of you already caught the news about Blaxius^2 but I held back a bit because our new born had to burn its *ss in a little first. Additionally my hearing was not the best the past days, so let's say that I couldn't believe what I was hearing in the first place.
:swoon:


As we may recall, the Blaxius was a community effort for a BNC Interlink in general, and what we at Phasure made of it, was an interlink with "blax" sound. Say that the emphasis was meant to go to the bass. This worked well but the Blaxius was so much more. It appeared to be a superb interlink, valued by many (owning $$$$ interlinks in the first place) as 10 fold its purchase price (at 250 euros) easily.

Skipping a few general steps of improvement, recently Lush^2 came about. Lush^2, a USB Audio Cable which emerged from the renowned original Lush and which ^2 version theoretically could create the best Audio USB cable ever just by means of configuration, appeared to be an audio bomb. So much so, that people wondered whether the Blaxius could not be ^2d too.
Initially I said No ...

Maybe a week later, and again someone asking for the possibility, it came to me that the Blaxius, when ^2d, would be a totally different application, electrically, than the Lush^2. And envision, people were actually asking for a digital Interlink - not much different from the Lush(^2). And I wouldn't even be able to test it, would I make one on request. Not really my style ...
But, isn't Blaxius used as analogue Interlink by most (like myself) ? of course it is. So why wouldn't I be able to test it then ?


Electrically different

The Lush^2 allows for configuration of its three different shields (screens). For a USB cable, this is about shields as such only. It is quite harmless, though important. It is harmless because no real current is flowing over any of the shields. It is important because of the shielding configuration making all the difference in the world to the sound.
Okay ...

A cable like the Blaxius, be it used as analogue Interlink or as a digital Interlink (like for S/PDIF or AES/EBU or whatever protocol, especially leaning on 75 Ohm impedance), uses its shield as the ground return. So, it is the gnd wire of the Hot/gnd part. Or plus/gnd if you want.
Over this gnd most certainly flows current ...

The minute I realized this was so ans *the* difference with the USB application, I was sold on it. A cable like the Blaxius should be so so much more be influencable with the current flowing over the shields, than a USB cable where no current flows over the shields at all.
I said WOW to myself already.


(http://www.stordiau.nl/Blaxius^2/Explanation BNC b.png)Using the same nomenclature as for the Lush^2, look at this configuration :

A:B-W & Y-R, B: B-W & Y-R
Here the current flows over the inner shield, while two additional "JSSG-360" shields form an additional double shield with dielectric, the latter pair doing similar to the signal as how it would to the Lush^2. Well, sort of, because right under it, current flows and it is not even "balanced" (like the Data+ and Data- van USB is).
Must be very very different for the work out ...
And mind you : the work out is very directly when used as analogue interlink, because it is right this signal which goes to the (pre-)amplifier. Compare with a digital signal, which theoretically only needs to comply to an eye opening of the eye diagram (but listen to the Lush^2 to know what already that does to the sound).

A:B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R
So ... now we have the middle shield carrying the current, under that a shield (W) which is just shield, but shielding as such from the main conductor (completely inside) where the current flows in the opposite direction. On top of that we have another (outer) shield and it connects to this "bottom" shield.
Can we still follow ?

I hope so because these were two configurations out of 1000s again and we can reason possibly even better what electrically might happen than with the USB application.
It's almost dangerous. Electrifying ...

A:B-W & Y-R, B: B-Y & W-R
This wouldn't be allowed. The Black wire, connected to the connector, now does not connect via any of the shields to the other connector.


Electrifying ? (Analogue Interconnect)

Yes. Depending on the type of music, the sound can be described like that.
You thought you knew detail ? hahaha

As is quite usual lately, the detail does not emerge in the highs but interestingly enough in the mid and even lower. You can say that a more square sound is outlined by high frequency support (so highs after all) which makes the square sound less rounded.
At the same time (sit tight) all the lower frequence transients are supported by way more umpf.
Lower frequency transients ?

Both descriptions in the paragraph above are actually the same. It is how a more transient low frequency sound is not overwhelmed by the low frequency itself. Next, the now more square sound has support from below the belt, so to speak. The whole soundscape changes.

The first night with the Blaxius^2 I started a song and right away heard that it was so way different that well before (say 1 minute) before a too much known melody started I asked in the room : "and, do you think you recognize this" ? The answer was No. Definitely not. The whole minute long. Then this real molody started and a "WHAT ?!?" followed.
So yes, this track is played maybe once per 2 or 3 weeks, for many years in a row. And it manages to be unrecognizable.

This happens in this fashion with more tracks and because they are so familiar I try to see what actually lacks or is added that they become so unrecognizable. I hear a melody more in the background instead of it being profound and/but I do not see how this is harmful. It is still there, but something else is more in balance with it now. I wouldn't want it differently, actually being able to envision both the situations (say from last week and from today).

Elsewhere (other forum) I wrote about a "beating" I now recognize in the lower frequencies (think "warble" to not make oit too complcated for now) and this first minute observation (last Saturday) remained. It has become the character somehow - things which may be able to "vibrato" sure do now. I hear troats doding this beautifully now, while previously they were "straight". It is in everything.
And you now what ?

It is exactly that which make the music musically sounding. It sings all over.

And this is with my third configuration attempt only.


Lushifying ? (Digital Interconnect)

I myself don't have the experience with the Blaxius^2 as Digital Interconnect, but a first quick report from a customer tells that like the Lush^2 the Blaxius^2 implies a less digital hence lush sound (this is from an M-Scaler application which requires 2x Blaxius^2).


Availability

Just now.
The Blaxius^2 can be ordered in the Webshop (https://stordiau.com/collections/cables-and-more-snakes-oil/products/blaxius-2-75-ohm-interlink-single).

Please mind the waiting time mentioned at the bottom of the page in the Webhop.

Peter

Thanks Peter.

So 10m of Blaxius^2 is totally out of the question? (Actually, I'd probably get away with 7-8m.)

Edit: Just read,"Would you like 20 meters or even more ? no worries because the Blaxius^2 will perform the same as if it were 1 meter. But better have some deeper pockets..."

I'll check my pockets ;)

Mani.

Hi Mani,


I made a spreadsheet, anticipating the question of 10 meters (why did I do that eh ?). 8 meters is also in the spreadsheet (coincidentally). It tells me that I should tell you to have about 1563 euros and 27 euro cent in your pockets.
This is for a pair.

Might you really go for that, then I will aim a video camera on someone here, because it might be the last we see from that person. IOW, I then must really take some breath before telling such bad news.
Bad ass blax news ?
This is about 20 hours in a row caterpillering sleeves around cables and sleeves. The person doing this will be useless for the remainder of life. The aging is not in the spreadsheet yet because it takes real life experience first.

Peter (due zombie hunter)

Haha...

What if you tell her (him?) that she can make them over a much longer period of time than usual?

Anyway, I probably won't be in a position to place an order for a few weeks (dependent on when a certain Euro client gets it's accounts payable act together).

Thanks for the forward thinking/planning though.

Mani.

Like daily workout eh ?
Good idea !
Now we can cancel that subscription too ...

Thank you, Mani.
Peter

Well Peter, I wondered when this would come about and to be honest I thought it might have been a few more months before we heard something.  I'm yet to use my 8m Blaxius interconnects but by the sounds of it I should get in ahead of Mani for some B^2 because only one pair of such length may ever be possible if you wish to retain family/staff...haha.

I'll be interested to read some reports from others in the meantime though and will get around to ordering some cables once my room is better sorted.

Cheers,

Anthony

Hi Anthony,

Same counts for myself because the task is quite undoable on one's own. Well, with my ears as of late, it is undoable. Stuck to "a" config.  :1eye:

Regards,
Peter

I think I was the one that first asked :) :scratching:
Feel slightly responsible for the family disharmony it may cause :oops:

Peter is kindly making me a 1.2m set next week which will be replacing a current set of blaxius between blu2 and Dave, so once I have a bit of time on the new set I can give some feedback between blaxius ^1 and ^2

Dear people - finally a more serious report from my side. But let's say, I finally dare to;

Via two other attempts, I think it was 4 days ago, Wednesday) that I landed on this configuration :

A:B-W, B:B-W

This seems pretty basic as it resembles the indeed native Blaxius interlink. And to be clear : I use the Blaxius^2 for Analogue Interlink only.
Thus, the inner shield in use as it always was used for the original Blaxius(^1) and the other two shields, Middle and Outer, not connected anywhere.

Why did I attempt this configuration in the first place ?
Well, because I got scared because of a too strange "manipulated sound" otherwise. Just the theory of an analogue cable which filters (to what idiot degree and what/where actually ??) and that I just couldn't believe what was all happening. The familiar music became too unrecognizable and I just could not see where the truths where.
The most dangerous part in this was the sheer fact that I couldn't see where it went wrong. But I mean, once you hear such profound up to even complete new instruments in a lead in, what to think for real, you being assured that it really is not a different version (master) or anything. Next you can reason out that possibly this new instrument is now audible (and not even softly !) because something else has gone. Say an overwhelming choir which otherwise was there. Take it out and suddenly a complete violin section comes forward. But you don't miss violins and in fact you don't know whether you miss anything at all. It's just (your) theory again.
:scare:

This Wednesday became the by far best few hours of playback in my history. It did not matter what I played, it played with music. So this is what happend foremost. Music music music.
This is such a strange phenomenon because it can't be described except for that it is so. But in this case, and I already touched the subject in an earlier post, I think I can definitely recognize what is "making" the music : vibrato;

Suppose we compare a 1980's drum/rhythm machine with a real drummer, then I think we cal all recognize that the drummer is more real because he makes minute faults in the timing. And this could even be on purpose throughout (like each hit on the beat 10ms too late which is what I myself would be able to do), but still varying a few ms per hit. And I know, the more modern rhythm machines back in the days could incorporate such variance, but still. Static robot-like stuff.
Same with all the music you are used to. Well, I bet you.

Now we have this Blaxius^2. And a first technical merit it shows is that it shows 10 times more of everything. 10 times FWIW of course, but more to an idiot degree. It does that in each of the 3 configurations I tried thus far and let's say that the "native" config I showed you above gives me a mental healthy feeling. More at rest, so to speak (and btw with a different sound than the other two configs).

Like my very very first observation and I recall also the very first remark about the sound in the first post in this topic, I keep on seeing the "vibrato" throughout. But this really goes wild and weird at some times.
Let's say that vibrato on a violin is just the longitudinal movement of the finger on the string. Mind you, the finger is not really physically displaced on the string, but the hand moves and this displaces the area where the finger touches the string, with that making the string shorter and longer (maybe for 2mm only). Well, unexpectedly I have no remarks on the violin, but now you know what I mean.
Now we head to the cello and upright double bass. If you hear this, your ears will drop off (so be careful please). Here, the player doesn't move his hand as with the violin player, but he may merely displace the string laterally. Say like an electric guitar play does (the violin type of vibrato can't work for the guitar player because of the frets). And the bass player appears to be doing that all the time. Not that I really noticed before ...

So this vibrato element is in everything. Now compare with the rhythm machine again and see how things suddenly achieved a level of being alive vs being, well, what ... digital playback ?

Maybe I must refer to something stupid as Ben Liebrand and his Iconic Groove album. This is I think his best album and less of a "mix" album, although it is still that. But the key of such DJ like recordings is that those guys tend to do all live. At least they can because they were born to do that. 8) And why always Dutch (for many many years by now) being good at that ? I don't know. Anyway, this album now is completely unrecognizable. E.g. the track "Love" (from originally Donna Summer with "I feel love") is suddenly so full of finesse that because of that reason it is much more "complicated" to recognize it throughout. It's much more intelligent now. Possibly this is because your focus is now completely elsewhere, namely on what all happens in that track for "sounds". But the most strange : this is now so "lively" that it is made by a human while before it was made by a computer. This is a complete contradiction of course, because it *was* made by a computer (knowing how these guys work).

I think I now touched 1.5 example, but I am completely full with them after 4 days of listening to it.

This vibrato thing is thus key, and it shows in everything where vibrato can be. Of course the guitars, but foremost also the voices which are suddenly full with sensitivity ans messages, roaring synthesizes which btw should roar (I have a couple of them myself) but which appeared to be so-so in aftermath and ... well, everything. How is it possible.
And yes, how is it possible that last night we watched Peter Rabbit (which is anime) and that I couldn't prevent myself from crying just because of the sensitivity in the voices of those rabbits. So mind you, indeed it is so that Blaxius^2 operates in the movie domain just the same. Obviously. Same DAC, same speakers with amplification, and Blaxius^2 is in between DAC and speaker(s). And now stupid rabbit voices draw tears ?

That.

That and so much more I can't explain.
Numerous times - no, throughout, I once again notice how I can't stay away from fully interpreting the lyrics. This has been up before and it is a logic thing to happen, but it is only a logic thing to happen when throughout all *is* better. I emphasize the "is" because it should not be subjective once it is so that we can hear better what's being said.
Said ?
That's the whole thing perhaps. Told. So what I seem to notice is that what's being said follows from what's being told (the message) and that in itself is related to all the intonations, support by the feeling which is put into the play as a whole but which again is derived from what the individual instruments do). Because of the support of the instruments, we interpret better what the message is and from there we just "hear" better. A mind thing. But working oh so well.

Example of the above for those who know it (will only be a couple of Dutch) : Doe Maar with "Nachtmerrie". This is about a guy who has a nightmare that he's back in school again. The bass guitar - played by Henny Vrienten who is also the lead singer and which could be crucial for my essay - sings about this nightmare, meanwhile putting an idiot level of vibrato into the bass guitar that now comes across as woiingwoiingwoiing as in a kind of head hammering or Hitchcock like suspense (which latter btw was from the same era as this Doe Maar track). Of course this extreme vibrato has been in there all the time, but I never heard it. Now it is about it. It is this suspense thing.

And indeed, now I write about it, the sound of suspense is something I heard really more than once the past days. Maybe you recognize how this is done with Hitchcock et all, it's (if you ask me) a stroke over the high key strings of a piano. Easy to do with a wing because it is always open. I never heard it before that I can recall. And now several times in a few days ?
The crux could be : do I now suddenly hear this because the sounds are able to express it, or do I hear this because first something else is incurring for it. I mean, if someone strikes those strings I will be quite OK. But if I am waiting for a million birds to show up in front of my window and then I hear this sound, I'm dead.

---

There is another thing I should mention;
Generally my ambient music does not work (out) any more. It depends a bit on what it is, but I feel there's too much of a shift downwards (frequency) to let it still excel on what it was selected for : higher frequency melodies and sounds. Two things which occur to me here :
1. My mood goes vastly south (downhill) when one after the other ambient track just is worth nothing much any more and looks to be at the A-B position in the player;
2. With the normal music I never see lacking anything while my mood goes up north rapidly again and that even up to the extreme.

I am very unfamiliar with that as it should be the other way around but I guess that the normal music is now so good that I could prefer it infinitely. And oh, say that 25% of the time I play that anyway, but usually something is going to disturb at some stage, and then it is easy to fall back to the ease of ambient. Ease ? maybe not because it is the most complex music of all, and it is there where now something doesn't go right. But, I am at my third Blaxius^2 only, plus I am alone, so far (help !).

To counter attack the above "lacking of something" (if I am right on that to begin with), yesterday I had the too far out idea to add mid to the "sound scape" in general.
Say what ?
Yeah, add mid. And with the Blaxius^2 I have no idea how to do that, as it seems mostly about how to avoid too much bass (which could be the same). Anyway, no idea and no input from others as of yet as well.
And so I came to the scary idea of now changing my Lush^2 to a more "mid" presentation, because the Lush^2 coincidentally seems all about : how to avoid too much mid. And well, the experience with the Lush^2 is already there to some extent and the configs which clearly bring too much mid are among it. And indeed, in the past week I already had virtual nightmares about combinations with the Lush^2 in general (it is too outrageous to even think about it) but since I now seen to have a clear objective with it (more mid), why not try it for an evening.
The complexity of it all is that nothing lacks when listening to normal music (up to not perceiving a difference at all with some types), also no mid, while it is the ambient which seems to lack all of it. Really strange.

Or ...

Or it should be so that the high frequencies of ambient eat the current for the mid. It still is so, of course, that we are doing very strange things to an interlink. In Dutch we say "je weet nooit hoe een koe een haas vangt" which seems equal to : you never know how a cow catches a hare.

Peter

And do I did. For even three evenings by now. :)

The result is more unexpected than I expected (:o) because
a. The Lush^2 quite strongly overrules what the Blaxius^2 "does";
b. The result implies that we must be talking about a mutual influence.

Ad b.: Which is exactly what I have been saying all along, although that was more in between the lines and an expectation.

---

Changing the Lush^ to the more higher-mid (lower-highs) focused balance, just readily brings back all the goodies of that Lush^2 configuration, though now sauced with the Blaxius^2 configuration. Not the other way around as I expected it. Thus envision :
The Blaxius^2 setting in combination with "a best" Lush^2 setting implies a quite (highs) rolled of sound, that in itself implying a heavily filtering Blaxius^2. This with the notice that this was relative to the Original Blaxius. Still you can hear that it is not normal filtering as such because it is not about lacking highs. It is about "low-highs" which are under that. Thus :

Lush^2 with A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R config
Blaxius^1
    A. gives a sound which is heavily low-highs focused.

Lush^2 with A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R
Blaxius^1
    B. gives a most enjoyable sound which is accepted by all, also those not using Blasxius^1.

Lush^2 with A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R
Blaxius^2 with A:B-W, B:B-W
    C. gives a way darker sound, but super most palpable and seriously bringing music (see previous post). Low-highs seems to lack for music focusing there.

Lush^2 with A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R
Blaxius^2 with A:B-W, B:B-W
    D. almost brings back the situation of Blaxius^1 (see config-combi A above)

Now on the latter :

"Almost" means that the enjoyment didn't feel different from the sessions playing with the "darker" and all so musical sound, but with this combi all really "worked" again for me, meaning that I had no-where anywhere the slightest idea of a stuffed ear feeling and this in itself allowing to play may ambient again. But better : it brought back the longer cymbal I think I talked about for this Lush^2 setting in particular.
I was all over happy again.

But it isn't really about that ...

If we observe the transition from B. to C., it is the conclusion that the Blaxius^2 with that config, filters.
But does it ?
If we next observe the transition from C. to D., where the Blaxius^2 does not change for config, the filtering is suddenly undone ?
Nah, that can't be.

And thus it must be so that the two cables now influence each other. This with the notice that both at least cross at the DAC's output end and that we may expect radiation (patterns ?) to be at play there.

Back to what I said elsewhere :
The configuration possibilities of the ^2 cables - and then looking at one on its own - will be implying

1. a different radiation pattern from inside of the cable to outside;
2. a different level of radiation capture of the cable itself from environmental devices;
3. a kind of recursive effect will be in order when the cable can also captures its own radiation field; now both 1. and 2. are in order already for the cable itself.

Ad 3.:
Which is similar but different to combined radiation fields from *and* environmental devices *and* from the cable itself
where
the "environmental device" is that other cable. Like Lush^2 vs Blaxius^2. And the other way around which makes the relationship already recursive (sort of) in itself.

So wow.

Sound of this combination

New nomenclature L> for Lush and B> for Blaxius.
(E> and C> coming up soon - haha)

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

Maybe the first what occurs is the again more firm bass. And mind you, I recall from the Lush^2 config alone that the bass could be with too much energy (could buzz at a higher frequency than actually being in the music). Deep down earth bass is now the result for some music (this is readily noticeable) and otherwise the bass is super throughout. This was not zo with the same Lush^2 in the same config and Blaxius^1.

The second what occurs is the all over present highs again. Not only the low-highs being represented again, but also the longer highs/cymbals (possibly this is the same thing).

The great fun with this combination is that previously both the Lush^2 application for this config combined with the Blaxius^ on one hand and and the Lush^2 regarded best config by all (see B. config more above) combined with the Blaxius^2 config we see in C above) ... eliminates the downsides (to these ears) of the former. So, two birds with one stone ?
Maybe.
But for now I have the hunch that this is no coincidence and that the both just interact (see above on the radiation fields) and that there's a balance in that too.

The sound is just all over superb with a now musical flavor of the Blaxius^2 in a, mind you, actually one-tried config only. Of course this was a kind of given by the last tried with the Lush^2 regardless, but still. This is just the beginning ! (I'm confident).


Yes ! That is why the photo below is from yours. Official production version.
Btw, left 5 minutes ago ... Due tomorrow.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Blaxius^2/Blaxius^2 Digital 03 c.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Blaxius^2/Blaxius^2 Digital 03 b.JPG)High Resolution link Blaxius^2 01 (http://www.stordiau.nl/Blaxius^2/Blaxius^2 Digital 03 a.JPG)

N.b.: This is the configuration for the Digital application (for now). My description and configuration more above was from the Analogue application.

Peter

All right. Envision :

You play Talki Walki from Air and each of the tracks you never heard before.

You play Faithless, track 01 - Bombs, then track 02 Spiders [...] ask the people in the room whether they ever heard it. Answer was No. Then towards the end of track 02 a very recognizable sequence of sounds occur, and I asked : "Still not ?" Big surprise because indeed I played it a maybe 50 times.
I said "wait, I'll help you" (because now track 06 - Last this Day was coming up). First 20 or so seconds, no recognition anywhere (also not by me). Until Dido starts to sing and this can't be missed.

Of course this wasn't about others who never heard it, but about myself checking against others. It is just freaking unbelievable.

Everywhere it is for a majority about the same thing : deep vibrato in all kinds of instruments and voices. And hey, I forgot to tell about the electric pianos. Like the Rhodes which plays at Riders on The Storm (The Doors). Even the Hammonds like from Jimmy Smith are capable of showing the vibrato explicitly, while it already was there (obviously, for a Hammond).

Day before yesterday I was shocked about John Lee Hooker - I Cover The Waterfront. At least this is normally recognizable but the now deep flanger going on throughout. This is so much so, like with say a difference of 6 dB more and less all the time (make it 3dB and I won't exaggerate) that again it reminds me of the "beating" (did I talk about that in this topic ? not sure). WehwWehwWehwWehwWehwWehw (one Wheh is about 1 second long).

That this all can happen is one, but that this just wasn't there before is down right spooky in itself. If you'd hear it side by side (OK, one after the other) then you'd bet a million some processor (DSP) suddenly is at play.

This is all still Blaxius^2. It is the biggest change in sound ever. And mind you, what I was used to against Blaxius^1 was "just better". And many of you would agree. FYI : World wide the Blaxius^1 is appreciated as an interlink which sounds even far better than anything people know (and spending multiple 1K on a pair of interlinks). Right ?
Yeah, so be it. Now try Blaxius^2. It transforms your complete system. All new, all different, all better. And in there the same cable resides ?
Yes.

But outside of Blaxius^2 we also have the new/old Lush^2 configuration I talked about in my previous post. Because this gives emphasis to the mid (high-mid / low-highs) you see the strange combination with the all so super tight / straight for example strings. Again hard to explain. But a metal guitar string, not further moved, sounds as straight as can be. Especially not when it is an electric guitar without acoustical body. It is the opposite of vibrato and flanger. And mind you, I talked about this more than once, though in the Lush^2 topic and thus for this A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R config (I did not look it up, but I am pretty sure it was about this one). So we have the super straight mids now combined with the all so musical lows. This combination is of a dimension that can't be expressed. OK, the analogy with this comes to mind : an Italian hors d'oeuvre which is about hot toast and something hot on it, but with cold tomato and herbs on top. It is hot and cold at the same time and for that reason super special.

This "straightness" brings a clarity unheard. Yesterday I played example after example because I can make up in advance where it works explicitly. There's too few time for this hobby now because all is a super surprise and while it is 8am here right now, I am already longing for the 10 hours from now. All this beautiful music you heard all of your life is suddenly completely new and all for the so much "more". You have no idea ...
OK, so you think you have eh ?
No. No matter how much I try to bring it across. No. As long as you won't even be able to recognize any of the tracks of Talki Walki, triple No.

Peter

Me again ...

First off I am the most happy to announce that from of tomorrow I won't be the only one spouting about Blaxius^2 idiocy. Better : then I will get help doing it. :)
And a few more next week.  :smirk:

Here is my own config which may not change soon :

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

(remember, L> = Lush^2 and B> = Blaxius^2)

"Whether I had changed something" the question was yesterday. "Yes a new cable" was my answer.
OK, I changed the config ...

Last mentioned configuration (one but last post) in the end did not make it. I found the highs too much "tearing" which in the end is cause by the Lush^2 config (A:B-Y & W-R, B:B-Y & W-R). Too much high mid. Or : takes out too much goodie of the Blaxius^2 - not sure.
After first changing the Blaxius^2 to A:B-R, B:B-R it seems to worsten. But it also had something. And so I tried the combination I put down above, and hey ...

I am not sure where it exactly changes things, but let's say it is a mad house thing because, well, it is. I will try to give an example.

Look below, Ring Ring Ring from De La Soul (on De La Soul is dead). This suddenly starts out with a riff I have never heard. OK, so far so good. However, when I talked about it outloud, I was told "oh yeah, that was there all right because I was waiting for it". Well, that will be so, but then in a fashion that I totally don't recognize. Probably it was there as a sound, now it is there as a riff (with the characteristic of hearing all the strings stroken).
But while this what I noticed as a first, this is not the reason for posting. This reason starts 20 seconds or so later in the track ...

What these (De La Soul) guys most often do, is making the sound explicitly LP like. I am not even sure why this is (because they're from the still existing vinyl era (at first) anyway) but I guess this gives the sound a certain flavor which in the end makes them recognizable. Say explicit bad sound (noise, huge wow / flutter) while the SQ in itself is very OK. Now :
This track has the LP ticks almost throughout. Mind you, like an LP which was a 1000 times thrown with. Thus full with scratches.
What the guys back then (1991 in this case) forgot to think of, was 2018 and an ^2 application from some idiot. So what they couldn't hear is that by now those scratches come so loud forward that they are louder than the remainder music and text. "Something is broken" was thrown at me. But no.

So this is what can be done today and with this example, which is a sound fairly on its own, we can see how somewhere in the more lower frequencies a square sound emerges to so super square and loud that you can't believe it is right. Still in each situation I carefully listen what would be wrong with it. But I don't see it.
N.b.: I mention "lower frequency" because that is what vinyl ticks become when they are severe scratches. When not so severe, they are much higher frequency ticks only. Well, how this Ring Ring Ring was at first.

The complexity in explaining is that it is
a. about super fast lower frequencies which
b. emerge to higher frequencies.
Notice : super fast = super transient = super square.

This phenomenon in itself I mention at least for the 2nd time in this topic, maybe the 3rd. Something got blazingly fast and while the highs (at least in my system) were already that, it is now the low frequencies following all BUT shown by the support of more highs. :swoon:
Can you follow ?

A much longer time ago, suddenly the metal of the upright double bass started to emerge like crazy. Maybe people remember this (I think this was an NOS1 thing but not sure). Well, this is real highs and not what I mean (also, I did not notice a change there yet - maybe I play too few Jazz). What I mean is the support of highs to low frequencies. Yesterday I heard this one again :

wow-wow-wow-wow
from a synthesizer. So again the vibrato in it where I never heard it. But I carefull listened and the effect is imposed by higher frequency. So *that* part I actually never heard. And again : is that fundamental (!!) high frequency ? NO ! It is the squareness of the fundamental (of say 100Hz) which now is worked out to real harmonics (200Hz, 300Hz, etc.) and them even interactibg with each other (in oscillating fashion) and there you have the wow-wow-wow-wow.
Oh, seeing myself writing this : the wahwahwah's are also a continuously occurring effect. Thus, the well known wah effect (pedal). It is so fully expressed while ... the whole pedal was not there before.

What I noticed with this particular config (but mind you, from one few hours of listening only) is that this time no bass is there where bass should not be. Some times this can come across as sheer lacking bass, but I don't think this is the case for real. What it does though, is yet again emphasizing all there is, which actually was overwhelmed by the bass to some extent. What I anyway clearly noticed and which makes me very happy, is the now *not* present "buzzz" in the bass. I think I described that with the other Lush^2 configuration and with normal Blaxius(^1) while the Luch^2 config with B-W Blaxius^2 at both ends showed too much bass although not disco like. This time (yesterday) I had no remarks about the bass at any time, unless it would be about the bass really be lacking somewhat (which is possible).

An other notice which could be a logical one :
I am used to my system requiring warm up of 20 minutes. At 9 something starts to happen but at 20 all is fine (and all is on 24/7 but does not play outside of listening hours);
For the so many-ith time, I yesterday noticed that maybe the required warm up is largely extended now. The logic of it would be that all is so much "accurate" (FWIW) hence pin pointed, that the slightest being off (when cold ?) is audible (as a form of distortion). Otoh I consider that it requires getting used to.
There is no way that the highs are too loud or anything because as said (quite often by now), it is about the lower frequencies shows square hence harmonics. These harmonics are not profound hence do not hurt or anything. But they seem to make the sound more grey when all is cold. I think this is not an unknown phenomenon to most, but if you first try to envision a full bodied sound with harmonics you are not used to (read : how can you know what I am referring to) and next all this "addition" shows grey, then the warming up needs to be more thorough hence longer. When this has been done, all what remains is a room full of sound. Really.

Speaking of which ...
An other notice is that there now is a clear differentiation between recordings which don't show ultimate high frequency and which come across far less "stereo" separation plus they clearly exhibit a required sweet spot (you can hear the highs increase for level - something I am not used to at all), vs the recordings which were made with more attention to where sounds must come from and which exhibit *more* stereo.
Both exhibits come together in my view, when we'd see that highs are more pinpointed indeed (thinner beamed, more accurately represented in mid air) and when left and right are the same with it, all adds up right in the middle and there only. On the other hand, when highs were thoughtfully separated in the left and right channel, it exhibits exactly the other way around : all gets more spacious.
So what I perceive if this, is all very well explainable to me, is not a downside, but is more "mono" for the mere "stupid" recordings (sadly I must mention the same De La Soul album again, as an example of that).

Peter

Peter,

Waiting for the B^2 to arrive so I can comment on my experience.  I have not experimented too much with the L^2 configuration since settling on what is shown in my signature.  I think I mentioned that putting in a dedicated circuit for the audio system helped.  I can turn on LED lights, etc. and there is no buzz/crackle like before.

Ramesh

Hi Ramesh - Although I know what you are talking about, I don't think this will be related to any ^2 shielding for better performance. At least that is not what my message is. This is merely about how the system itself generates the RFI (including the cabling) and how to protect from that. Both from the outside (into a cable) as well as from the inside (cable emits).


We're starting right at this time on yours. :) Managing before the end of the day (UPS deadline) seems tedious, but it could ... If so, prepare for Wednesday, otherwise Thursday.


Sadly, the "from of tomorrow" appeared not to be working out with the customer himself not present. So his Blaxius^2 arrived all right, but he is out travelling for a couple of weeks.
The "few more" this week, should apply, though.

Regards,
Peter

Meanwhile ...

Yes, I could use the help (on new configurations), but I start to wonder ... It is all becoming really outrageous over here.

I think I can derive from the posts in here that I must be having my own Blaxius^2 at work for close to 3 weeks now. Consider this kind of time for burn-in. But also consider required burn in of some sort per configuration. This is what I seem to notice but this is also what seems quite logical to me. This is because the signal flowing over the shields (at least one of them).

This is what I am (still) using, since Oct 29 :

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

Three days ago for the first time I started to notice that something was vastly improving without me doing anything. This continued day before yesterday and yesterday I just lost all my references ... Not explicitly, but to the sense of not knowing "where to look" any more. All is one big stream of new information and with now x things at the same time being new, it becomes impossible to focus on "a change".

---

On a side note, yesterday (and three days ago this happend to me exactly the same) I was so in ecstasy that I considered of giving you all the Blaxius^2 for free instead of giving you the chance to miss out because you think it may be too expensive, it not being worth it, or whatever you may abusively think. But it wouldn't be a practical idea. And if we could say that we'd have standard lengths people could exchange ... but we can't. The Blaxius^2 is either too long or too short.
Anyway message : that enthusiastic I now am.

---

The real reason of this post - and this too is occurring since 3 days : cymbals.

I don't know what happened or where it happened hence what now actually causes this, but the cymbals show something I was not prepared for, did not see coming at all, and did not know it even existed :

1. whoosh;
2. angle of hitting.

Although #1 seems easy to explain, I think it is not because the nomenclature for it possibly has died out. I think it is a thing from the past and possibly even only "Dutch" :

de cymbaal (bekken) zuigt lekker
  or very freely translated :
the cymbal nicely sucks.

I think you can see that I have problems with the translation, already because the phenomenon seems to have died out. Possibly it is even an analogue thing. The "sucking" is literal but I dedicated it "whoosh" ("sucking" is literal and in a very positive sense). It's an inside out sound and will be about how the cymbal develops its sound when the edge of it is hit (not too loud because we'd have the "crash" sound). The color of the sound changes; it also gets louder underway and when it dies out the color changes again.
Of course in real life this sound is there, but from "a stereo" I never really saw it happen. Now it does all over. And it just flipped-in (3 or 4 days ago).
Precisely together with this, #2 emerged and this won't be a coincidence (read on).

#2 is something which is so, so important (I now see) that it can be considered an other dimension again. But how to bring this across ...
An attempt :

Envision a rock drummer. He does not have one cymbal only (like a Jazz setup often has), he has several. He will have one (or more) to the left of him and he will have one (or more) to the right of him. What he can do with this is hit the one after the other with one hand by twisting his wrist. Envision the stick hitting the one cymbal and after that the other while the stick has been twisted a 180 degrees. He is not doing this continuously (left-right-left-right) but it is a reoccurring sequence with one left-right only. Now :
First off, such a sequence never even occurred to me and you can well say that this is because the two hits blend too much. Oh, you may hear two hits all right, but not that it will be from the same stick. So there it starts ...

In whatever I listen to now, I hear the cymbals to the right and to the left and under what angle the cymbal is hit. This is also related to the angle of left and right with the same hand, will not be the same. Hard to explain, but this is about how "deep" the edge of the cymbal will be hit, assumed it is the edge which is hit and which already not necessarily is so when the wrist twists for the 180 degree different hit. But the deeper the cymbal is hit (say the stick hits the edge more towards the hand) the softer and darker it will sound (this stick is more thick there and there's also less momentum).
What comes from this all is that you suddenly see the drummer sit and how he moves to do his act.

The logic of the #1 and #2 occurring together : well, logic, because #1 already tells about how the cymbal develops its sound, which is 100% related to where and how it is hit. So if that works, #2 is bound to work as well. At least this is my explanation of it.

I could try to add a #3, but this is only new during this writing and with that it is theory : there's now a clear differentiation in color of one cymbal hit.
Eh ...
So yes. If you follow my spouting about cymbals and color and too white or too China or too small etc. etc., and you could read back on all this, you'll always observe the same : it is or this or that. Is it ever right ?
Virtual excerpts of that :

- The cymbal seems to be too white.
- The cymbal sounded ugly; this improved.
- There's more color in them now.
- They are too long; throats will spit with them.

If I may start with the latter :
They are now longer than ever and it does NOT happen because of the Lush^2 config which implied that (because I am not using that config).
There is no spur of overly detail (no spitting anywhere), while they thus still sound long.
They sound long while (mind you !) they die out and even come back. Just like reality. Well *that* is new.

And about the other two bullet points :
It is not in order because they develop color underway. The "develop" means : it just changes from hitting to dying out.

So you got that, right ? But now envision how ALL of the sound is influenced by whatever similar "appliance" because when it works with a cymbal, it will also work with a voice and a guitar and a piano and a floor tom and a sax and a violin and ... what not.
So this is what I mean with : I lost my reference. Nothing compares any more.

One thing I will add because it keeps on being in my mind :
Two days ago I was already focusing on this and on what to play to enjoy more of this fantastic sound. I envisioned Angie (Stones) and this thus because of the cymbals alone. I don't know why exactly (I really never play the song) but I "saw" something. And so I did. I even announced it over here in the room, as in a "watch this".
No, nothing appeared to be there as how I envisioned it - the cymbals just aren't there to begin with. Or at least not in the first 2-3 minutes when I stopped it already. But still ...
IIRC in the first 45 seconds somewhere there's this opening and closing hi-hat. It is a one time thing. Jagger and all played at realistic levels. But this hi-hat appeared halfway between me and the speakers, oriented to the right and say 1 meter under the (3m) ceiling. Louder than I would be able to play the hi-hat myself. The specialty of it was the full image of the hi-hat. So not a sound, not a particular part the remainder left for your brain to work out. No, a spooky hi-hat of the right size, but way too loud. Jumping at your like a ... wasn't it Halloween ?

All I can envision in aftermath is that the hi-hat was way too much amplified, because, well, it always is. This has to be so because else it is underwhelmed by any other cymbal or snare or guitar etc. etc. It is a weak thingy that won't express much sound when not touched with the stick (only open and close by means of the pedal). Btw, here (Angie) the stick was in order all right.
Summarized, this hi-hat in Angie completely failed. It jumped out like an elephant. Still nothing in itself was wrong with it.

If there's one time when I dare to say "things really start to work !" it is now.
Maybe you see better now how early in this post I said "I don't know where to look". But man, how interesting this is ...

Peter

For those waiting on more reports ... we managed all right, but this new Blaxius^2 owner too ran out for more than a week. Those cables must be scary. :)

And while I am writing here anyway ... Yesterday I received the question whether it maybe was possible to play music without all this scattering and noises and all what is completely new in my "ambient" music. My response : I can't help that this is in there. You have heard this all a 100 times. It is like it is. And I like to play it because it shows what the system is capable of, these days.

But I must tell you : Yesterday I started out with a Burt Bacharach, and the ambience coming from that floored me. As if a 100 hall processors were applied to it. After the first shock of that, I recovered and focused on the reality (I always try to do that); again nothing wrong that I could see. But it was ab-normal real(alistic) how each of the instruments + singer were presented. From there, it is not only that I don't know "where to look" (see previous post) but I also don't know where to go to explore more of this. :clapping:

The actual worst part of it, seems to be that yesterday again was really much better than the day before. Things all over "snap in" and what did not fall in place yesterday yet, will today (system is on 24/7 and don't ask me how that causes real burn in, knowing that the DAC will output noise only, at -143dB or so).

Also strange : I reported (5-6 days ago ?) about the mere "mono like" presentation for recordings which weren't the best. But that disappeared completely too. I played the same album (tracks of it) and nothing was mono-like now. Actually it would be so that the general remark could be that things fly from left to right (and beyond) in a fashion I never heard before. This then as a general thing for any recording. It was even so that yesterday I was right next to the (outside - wall side of) the left hand speaker (playing at 86-88dBSPL) and the highs from the right hand speaker, that being 7 meters away from where I was, were just as audible as if I were in the middle between them. But, merely as reflections against the opposite wall. I mean, this latter has to be so because of the directivity of the horn I have. Anyway, that too I never heard before. It actually can't be either, but still it is so ...

More raving tomorrow ?

Peter

In a separate post I like to mention this :

I feel we are on the verge of a new era in audiophiledom. Things start to happen in - or of a dimension which wasn't thought possible. I say this because *I* thought it was not possible, having worked on the sub-mm localization with phase angles and such.

As many of you will know, by now I "claim" that the 3D representation of recorded instruments, played back through loudspeakers, is not possible because of a lack of high frequency (without explaining further, my local positioning system (LPS) endeavors from pre-Phasure times worked in the 2.4GHz band, while here we have a max 20KHz band only). But I start to change my mind ...

The LPS lived by the grace of more than one frequency (a dirty trick), while audio, although comprising of say 100 frequencies we can hear, is still way too low in frequency itself to allow "re-positioning" by means of phase angle (and ITD vs ILD and whatever we humans work with). Very roughly, if 20KHz is 100 times lower in frequency than 2GHz, the theoretical accuracy of the "system" is 100 times less than the sub 1mm accuracy. Make that 1mm and the accuracy for audio would be 10cm which is insufficient for "pinpointing" and (re)building an image in mid air.

Can't follow ? or not agree ? then better stop reading. :tongue2:

If I mention a 100 frequencies (like they could spring from a few instruments, each expressing multiple frequencies like the easy example of a guitar or a violin which will have more sources of the sound of one string stroke) ... then these frequencies are certainly not all close to 20KHz. In other words, be they 1000Hz, then the accuracy again theoretically decreased by a factor of 20. 10cm now have become 2 meters and obviously nothing works. However ...

What is 100% totally clear to me is that for audible frequency, again be that the guitar or the violin, but also the drum of any kind and name it except for a recorder (flute with sine tones), the extension of those harmonics (which theoretically are infinite if they only don't die out and could be captured in the first place (microphone range etc.) ... is now infinite for the audible range.
:scratching:
Yes. And if not today, then hopefully tomorrow.

What I mean can be heard in anything. Examples :
- Bells are in so many recordings (just think a general percussion arrangement), and they were not there a week ago.
- The scattering sounds which emerge in the lower frequencies, are in close to 100 "ambient" tracks. It just wasn't there before.
- Synthesizer glides (sweeps), denoted by similar squared sound, are in everything of that age (think two boys with their synthesizer). Did I say everything ? - it just was not there before.
- Clarity is infinite to begin with. So a human voice too extends to way more than you thought. It makes it more real. This is spooky, but was not there.
- The roar of low frequency is in about everything. But here too, this is about higher frequency showing it. Mind you, such an oscillating sound (generated by an LFO) is always about more than one frequency (oscillating against each other).

---

Of course we know that each frequency we hear, also (close to) pure squares, is about sines (sinuses). Te more square, the more (infinite number of) sines are required to represent the sound.

---

What I sense happening is that all filtering that could attenuate the higher frequencies, has been banned. Or at least to a degree thought impossible. And that this is way beyond our current thinking, can quite easily be proven by selecting a "more rolling off" filter in all kinds of software (including XXHighEnd). Can we hear that ? a bit. Can we hear what I am talking about today ? with ears completely closed you still can.

The difficulty for me to bring this across, is and remains about it NOT being the fundamental (!) high frequencies you suddenly hear. So no cymbal suddenly starts to hiss; no S'es are presented white and painful; no flute show a higher pitch (better : frequency) or anything. No. It is the square-sound possibility which is exploited. I have heard so much of it now, that I am sure it is that. But what does it really mean, if at the same time no cymbal starts to hiss ?

-> That all what is present for higher frequency in the data and which is laying (or layered) right on top of the lower frequencies which may be square and usually always are square to some degree, - unless a pipe organ or something -, can now be dug out of that.

It is not the higher frequency which now is louder (and thus the cymbal does not start to hiss), but it is the possibility to dig out the higher frequency of the lower frequency, which is thought to be the current eating one (while I for a very long time state that the higher frequencies eat more current than the low). Anyway, both the lower and the higher play together (in real life) and the higher are required to make the sound square as it originally was, and possibly we must look at this as if the one does not eat the current for the other any more. Both now can play nicely along and it is caused by a cable. OK, shield configuration.
It hardly can be about a filter as such, because that would be audible in native higher frequency sounds (like from a cymbal). All right, they changed too (see yesterday's post) but the emphasis to square is a 100 times more apparent.

Without measuring anything, what about the thought that the shielding setup is not allowing to let escape higher frequencies which kind of "ride" on the lower frequencies. I am sure I am talking real BS now, but I seek an explanation. Lower frequencies may "push out" the higher frequencies because of a lack of space. What space ? don't ask me. But I see those higher frequencies kept in now. Kept by a shield.
Btw let's not forget that this is about analogue signal. This, while it is combined with the digital signal of the Lush^2 with very similar manipulation and of which we know for dead-sure that it changes the sound too. And vastly. But not much explainable (or at least not so easy).

---

Still there ? Good. What I was heading for throughout this post, was the sheer fact of the way more present higher frequency in actually each fundamental sound, which not only extends to one audible native so-called fundamental because a synthesizer sound (etc. etc.) never is that - only sines have that ... meaning that the one sound already comprises of several mixed fundamentals, those each (!) having their own set of harmonics and THAT again is each comprised of sines ... and that this all leads to hundreds of frequencies from one sound only, them extending to way up out of the audible range. Like the 16.21KHz harmonic we can still perceive but the 32.42 one not any more. And now thus 100s of these for one sound. Make that one instrument if you like.

What I tried to reason is that my "100 frequencies all together" with which this post started out, now suddenly are 100s of them per sound. And careful, because a 10 finger play on a piano is 10 of those sounds. So we easily end up in the 1000(s) now.

... And what I see - or very much like to see from there, is that there *is* sufficient frequency to make sounds locatable in 3D from two speakers. I can just see it coming. That Angie hi-hat spooky example as the first.
And am I changing ^2 configurations at this moment ? no way. Nature is doing its job first (burn-in). So how knows ...

Peter

Hi Peter,

I received my Blaxius^2 yesterday in the evening. I immediately installed them for a first audition even if I know that it must be burnt in for some time before a first serious audition. Well, after having read the description you wrote about that cable I had some expectations.

And...I must say that what I heard yesterday night during the 3 hours spent going through well known music is that I absolutely agree you. I was not prepared to hear so much new sounds from well known recordings. What is most striking to me is that the highs are so much more present in so many instruments. These highs are in no way annoying, it's rather the opposite. I've been looking for these kind of highs for so long, now I believe that I found it. Music notes are truer to the original instrument. There is now a new richness to the tones. The attacks are better delineated and the overall sound has more body.

The soundscape takes another dimension with the highs that are now liberated. It's more 3D like you mentioned, and this contributes to create a better immersive ambiance.

After these short 3 hours of listening I can say that the Blaxius^2 may be the single change that had the most beneficial effect in my audio chain.

And the cables were cold from the box! It will be interesting to hear the evolution as they burn in.

Thanks for this other superb product.

Michael

Hi Michael,

What a nice surprise this early morning !

Thank you very much for being the first to really use it (as far as I can tell - others are travelling) ... and report about it.

What is also nice for me to see is that it works out as well with a quite different system. It should because of what it protects from (like the Lush^2) but the analogue application is a quite different beast and the behavior could be different (still many configurations to try out when it would not have worked out and notice that you received the same as I use myself - this does not count for the others already delivered).

Thank you Michael !
Peter

Something else ...

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Blaxius^2/Blasxius^2 Digital 04.JPG)
What you see here is the "definitive" version of the Blaxius^2 in Digital fashion. Let's say it is named Blaxius^2-Digital.
The difference with the Blaxius^2 for anlogue is the missing White wire. The annotation as you see it in the picture (the B end assumed the same) would be :

A:[W]B-R, B:[W]B-R

The [W] means that it is internally there all right and can not be avoided. It also means that - unlike the normal Blaxius^2 - it would be allowed to not connect any of the "connectable" wires. This is because the ground return path goes over the fixed (White) shield. It would look like :

A:[W], B:[W]

So, true, the "White"/innermost shield is there by standard for the digital version of the Blaxius^2. This appeared to be necessary for utmost critical applications, like Chord's Hugo M Scaler. Envision two BNC outputs for a dual wire setup to achieve max 768KHz output (each BNC cable being 384 capable), those outputs so close to each other that there's only 1mm space in between the two cables. And now they interfere with each other with the notice that for normal Blaxius^2 there is no configuration possible with 100% shield coverage for the signal wire in the cable. Thus also not when the inner shield (W) is the one in use.

The above mentioned is normally not a problem, but the M Scaler which seems suspect to RFI to begin with (not my own judgment but derived from hot discussions about it elsewhere), now pushes its higher frequency signal (50Mbit/s per cable) through two very close to each other connections, them causing interference with each other. And now the tiniest bit of "irregularity" may cause trouble.

Peter

Hi Peter,


I'd like to clarify the the configuration of the Blaxius^2. The pair I received was configured A:B-W, B:B-W. Based on your last posts and your signature I immediately reconfigured them to A:B-R, B:B-R. The latter is the only configuration I used so far. The cables have been shipped on November 2nd.

The Lush^2 config. is A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R.

Thanks,

Michael

Oops, Michael, you are right. I have been confusing myself with the arrival dates. A pair sent after you arrived earlier, and that one received the A:B-R, B:B-R.

Sorry for the confusion !
Peter

Hi Peter,

So if I understand correctly, the configuration you are currently using is A:B-W, B:B-W. Right? However your signature shows A:B-R, B:B-R.

Michael

Michael,

On Nov 5, Peter mentioned that he was still using (since Oct 29) a B^2 configuration of A: B-R B: B-R.  I believe this is the configuration he is using.

Ramesh

Ramesh, correct.

A: B-R B: B-R

Regards,
Peter

I received the Blaxius^2 about 10 days ago.  Had a brief listen before heading out on a trip.  Returned, and have now been listening for a couple of days.

At first my feeling was "this is amazing, but I think I had this sound with Blaxius^1 as well."  So earlier today, as a test, I switched back to Blaxius^1.  I was utterly shocked at how much "flatter" the sound was. THERE IS NO GOING BACK!  Just like with the upgrade to Mach III.

I have to listen some more and write a more detailed report.  I really do not even know where to begin.  The overall impression is more "3D" and further immersion in the music.  I need to sort this out some more.  Still absorbing the sound.

Ramesh

Ha !, nice !!

In parallel I was posting this : 2.10 sound quality - SFS 10.19 (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3999.msg43752#msg43752). This with the notice that you are fully on-par (read the text in there).
I hope you will find some useful tips in that post.

And yes, not knowing where to begin is quite similar to not knowing where you are (this could be a bit of Dutch). Anyway, welcome in my universe ?

:)

Peter

OMG the transformation is absolutely instantaneous from the very first note. If I did not know Peter there is no way I could imagine break-in making it better. I will play with settings but not for a while.


Blaxius ^2 :NY01: :xx: :soundsgood: :NY02:  This is for real

Haha.

Fred, Are you using RCA adapters with the Blaxius?  If so, how much better would the Blaxius be without...

Hi Dave
Yes I am using with the RCA adapters from the original Blaxius cables. I think both of us did not really feel the original Blaxius made a noticeable difference in our systems. Well I am here to tell you that is not the case with the Blaxius ^2. I am not sure if you have the Lush ^2 as of yet but I am using them both together which I understand from Peter is very important.

My system sound has transformed so much with these that my guess is you will not recognize it from the last time you visited. I have addressed room resonance issues and will soon have dedicated tweeters installed.

The 3D experience Peter, then Ramesh and now me are speaking of is just unbelievable. My guess is after your next visit here you will be updating your connections. It must be getting boring to hear me say it again but it is the best my system has ever sounded. You heard it with the G3, then the Mach III. Now you hear it again with the Lush^2 and now the Blaxius ^. Trust me when I say the sound for sure is not boring.

Come up and hear the White Album. Bring extra underwear :teasing:

Hi guys,

I have been using the Blaxius ^2 since 2weeks & by now it’s pretty much broken in. The first reaction is the tightening of the lower end & significantly more clarity in upper mids & highs.

I must say that the SQ, in my set up, has seriously evolved over the past few months with the addition of the Mach III initially thereafter the Lush^2 & now the Blaxius^2.

Thank you so much Peter for relentlessly improving our music listening experience.

Best regards,

Arvind

Dear Arvind,

You are able to seriously keep up the suspense ! For you too counts that for at least a week I was urged to ask you whether everything is all right. But I guess people like you are realy serious about the breaking in and waiting for that to be sufficiently so.

:heat:
Yes, that is really how I feel some times. And for you too of course, counts that you are "fully on par" whatever that may mean to others, but for me it means that your judgment can easily overrule mine, us having the same system for all of its components. So who actually says that my own judgment and ears are right ?
you !

Thank you Arvind,
Peter

Hi Peter,

I prefer to comment once I’m sure that the SQ is consistent. Hence takes a while.

Incidentally I forgot to mention, in my earlier post, that after connecting the Blaxius ^2, I had to reduce the low frequency output of the Orelo by 1dB.

Best regards,

Arvind

Arvind,

I recognize the urge to do this, but it is not something I like to change. So I sought it in different settings.
Are you using the settings I gave (did I ?) or did you deviate from that and only then got that urge to lower the bass output ? (and now end up with an overall better)

I am just curious because I held on and now don't have the problem (urge) any more.

Could be interesting ...

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

From the original setting, given by you, I had to lower the bass output by 0.5dB, at the time I had the Mach II PC, Lush & Blaxius.

Now with the MachIII, Lush^2 & the Blaxius ^2, I was urged to reduce it further by 1dB (more so after the Blaxius ^2)

I find the bass overpowering & tends to subdue the mids & highs.

Currently my Q, SFS, etc settings are as per my signature, which are the same as yours.

Best regards,

Arvind

Ah, OK. Thank you Arvind.

Maybe it is so that you ever back upped the bass somewhat ?
And yeah, possible I lowered it myself way long ago. So I'm afraid my question will be moot.

Also, maybe it will change with some more breaking in of Blaxius^2. I have the sense the mid is more and more profound and the cymbals longer and longer (and this could overwhelm the bass again, so to speak).

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

No, the bass output is currently lower by 1.5dB from the original Orelo settings as shipped out by you.

I doubt if any more breaking in of the Blaxius ^2 is reqd but I do intend to move the listening position to see if I can come back to the original settings of the Orelo. Maybe this weekend.

 SFS & Q settings have not given the desired effect in the bass range. Hence I had to resort to reducing Orelo bass output eventually.

Best regards,

Arvind

It may come across as strange to you, but the solution should really be to find a better setting of the Blaxius^2.

And I myself should not forget that I am using the 10/20 processor, which really produces a different sound than your 14/28 (which latter - as you know - again produces an other sound when set to be a 10/20).

Since a few days I have another spare 14/28 again, so I could try it and spoil myself with it again ... :scratching:

 :secret:

Mani.

Still it is not yours. :) :censored:

 :(

Mani.

Yours is an other. :hips:

Hi Peter,

Spent the weekend with a focus on reaching the original settings on the Orelo. Finally managed it with the following settings/changes.

SFS 80.19
Q1=30, xQ1=1
Moved the sweet spot back (away from the speakers) by 16”.

Some fine tuning still needed. Will attempt later this week.

Best regards,

Arvind

Arvind, Thank you for sharing.

Regards,
Peter

Arvind,

I think I have the same equipment set up as you do.  I do not find the sound presentation "forward" in any way with the two configurations that Peter has suggested (the one with SFS at 10.19, the other with SFS at 140.19).  I plan to do some experimenting in the next several days--been a bit busy to listen critically, and let you know what I find.

I do find that classical music is the most challenging!  Trying to optimize settings using some good classic music recordings.

Ramesh

Hi Ramesh - I reckon that you imply that Arvind said that somewhere. But did he ? I looked back in this topic but don't see it really.


Unless, of course, we are to interpret this as the desire some for less forward (like 16" - haha).

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Ramesh/Peter,

The reason for moving the sweet spot back was not due to the sound being forward, my impression was that there could be some low frequency reinforcement which made it louder & consequentally drowned the mids & highs.

We do have the same set up but the room has its own play, I guess.

Best regards,

Arvind

In preparation to listen more critically to Blaxius^2 and various SQ settings, I got hold of a laser distance measure and aligned distance between speakers and listening position to within 3 mm.  This alone has contributed quite a bit to SQ, especially imaging and sound stage.  I would highly recommend that everyone get speakers aligned as accurately as possible before trying various different settings.

Haha, yes, a very useful tool. I use it too. But that doesn't prevent from still being able to detect "anomalies" regarding this. And now worse : I know the distances are exactly correct but the "problem" is still there. So now I can be sure it is the remainder of the room (like cabinets, chairs, etc.).

The main message could be : All is so "precise" now that it becomes might important to have all "exactly right".

Peter

Thanks to Peter`s Lush-2 and Blaxius-2 cabels i`m still satisfied with my old Avantgarde Duo Omega speakers  :smile:
Since I no longer feel I need new speakers i think the cabels is a cheap investment.

Last week i saw some very expensive used speakers for sale in my area,
Dynaudio Evidence Platinum.
Just for fun i drove over for a listen.
The SQ was was not nearby my own

Thanks Peter  :veryhappy:

Hei Tore !

Thank you for sharing and great that your Avantgardes will last for an other 10 years. :)

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Peter

I've changed my setup and now need a decent SPDIF cable to replace the generic RCA cable I'm currently using.
For my greater understanding, does the Blaxius^2 Digital actually have 4 screens:
One inner most screen for carrying the current (call it W) and another three screens (B, R & Y) that are not connected to W?
If the above is correct does it come pre configured with a 'consensus' configuration?

Thanks

Tim

Hi Tim,

No, not 4 screens. Just 3 as the other ^2 cables but with one always connected (fixed) and this is the W(hite). So this part is now not configurable.
Notice that B(lack) is always the connector end.


Oh they are, when you configure it to be so. :) But I suppose that is what you meant anyway.

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Peter

Thanks for your reply.
Hmmm, I'm not sure I do understand completely  :blink: :).
One last time! For the configuration:
A:[W]B-R, B:[W]B-R
Does this mean current is flowing in W and also in R (because B & R are connected at the pins)? 
And, no current flowing in Y as Y is floating (not connected at the pins)?

Tim

Tim, 100% correct.

And an addition for further clarification :

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

Now current is *not* flowing through Y because it is connected to one side only. Still this will bring a different sound as when Y is not connected to the B side; the shielding will work out differently.

Regards,
Peter

I am looking for a BNC interconnect between a Chord M Scaler and Hugo TT2 and have read many wildly positive reviews about the Blaxius^2.

What length of cable would you recommend for units that sit on top of one another? The sockets are less than 5cm apart.

I've read that the Blaxius cable stiffness means it can make this position impractical, but it is unclear whether they meant it cannot curve through 180° over short lengths, lifts the upper unit or just that it sticks out the back horizontally, requiring clearance at the back.

There is also the issue of whether short lengths <1m sound shrill with the Blaxius as they do with some other cables.

Any advice?
Thanks

Hi there Roger,

Without further elaboration which would get complicated anyway, I would put them 20cm above each other, that being the smallest diameter of the implied half circle. Notice that this requires 20 cm behind your rack as well.
Because there's the rule that each 90 degree bend consumes 10cm of extra length, this adds 20 to the 20 cm to the vertical distance you already had. Take again 10 cm extra per end because of the plug's ends which are extra stiff.

Are we at 50cm now ?
Bzzz

Regards,
Peter

Thanks Peter,
That sounds like 60cm, but if I really wanted to keep them on top of one another, I could add a couple more 90° bends (if the attached picture displays), 100cm should cover it.

Presumably it wouldn't exert much upward force on the upper unit and as you didn't comment on the shrillness, that presumably is not an issue.

Please tell me if I am missing something here (like kinks break the cable).

Best regards
Roger

Hi everyone--

I am a new Blaxius^2 owner and have installed a pair of the cables between by Chord MScaler and DAVE. After doing some reading on here, I am concerned that I may have ordered the wrong cable for my Chord gear. Specifically, I now have the cables with four wires (white, black, yellow, and red) at each cable end. I'm worried that I should have ordered the "digital" cables that only have three wires at each end (no white wire). But my understanding is that the white wire is internal to the "digital" cable. Is there a real difference between the two cables and did I order the wrong cable for my Chord gear??

If I did not order the wrong cable, I'm wondering if I have the best configuration of wires for my setup. I was initially trying to duplicate what "The Attorney" had discovered in the audiophilestyle.com forum, which he described as A:[W]BY and B:[W]BY. I attempted to duplicate this configuration by attaching the white wires to the pins with the red dots, and then attaching the black wires to the second pin next to the white wire, and then attaching the yellow wires to the pin next to the black wire. I left the remaining two pins (the farthest pins from the red dot) with no jumper caps.

Is this an appropriate setup for the MScaler and DAVE?

Thank you for any help you can provide.

Hi there …

I was afraid of that … could have asked (I recall I had a whole weekend for asking), but thought to not interfere because the descriptions should be obvious. I guess I must overhaul the description after all. With apologies …

Point is : The cable you have now is the better one. But it should work. And I don't see you talking about it not working as such. It can work, but depending on what they did at Chord's. Or in other words : we could softly blame Chord for issues, but instead we created the "digital" version just for the MScaler/Dave combination. But mind you, this was over 6 months ago …

So before we proceed, does it work ? also at the highest speed (768) ?

Best regards,
Peter

PS: And if I can address you with a name, this talks more comfortably.  :)

Hi Roger …

Triggered by the other post, I only now find yours. Great apologies for that. I somehow missed it completely.

So if you are still there (most probably 100% sure not), that drawing implies 3 bends of 90 degrees. So adds 30 cm.

Yes, a real kink will break the cable. This is why the advised smallest radius should not be compromised.
If you have it in your hands all is pretty obvious because you will feel where you should stop making the bend sharper. But that doesn't help much if you don't have it yet, does it ?

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi Peter--

This is Jon in Seattle. Thanks for responding to my message quickly.

Yes, the cable I have is working so far. I've been playing it for four days now and DAVE indicates that it is passing signal at the appropriate speeds, including the highest speed (768).

I will add that it is sounding very good too. My experience with cables between MScaler and DAVE has been limited to the stock cables that Chord supplied with the MScaler and to a pair made by a company called Geistnote. The Geistnote were a significant improvement over the stock cables and cost less than $100 USD. A great bargain. But your cables are a significant improvement over the Geistnote. I will soon be trying some other cables including the WAVE Stream Premium, the Opto DX, and the Shunyata Alpha. So we will see.

I am still concerned that I have a configuration of the wires that is optimal. Could you please review my description of the wires in my first message and respond to my question regarding their configuration?

Once we get the configuration issues settled, I have some more questions and some suggestions for how you might describe the cables on your website.

Thank you!

Jon

Hi there Jon,

For 100% sure I will try to come back to that configuration for you. But it requires attention I don't have at this moment (visitors from abroad) plus it requires reasoning and creativity. I mean, you are in the unique position that you use it in an environment that is … unique (the analog application for digital).
I *am* super glad that it works out. Nothing is worse than having the opportunity of warning you, while I just omitted that. So this feels good.

In addition, please notice that it is always a best idea to first let things settle (break in). Only then changes become fruitful because the judging will be more genuine. This should be about a week from the start.

Kind regards from here,
Peter

Fair enough, Peter. You have a life and I respect that. As of Monday, it will have been a week with the Blaxius breaking in for that entire time.

I just want to make sure that I hear the cable with the best configuration(s) possible. If it turns out that this particular cable is not really ideal for my system, and that the digital cable will give the best options, then we might want to consider shipping back the analogue and trying the digital. But one step at a time.

When you have the capacity to give this your attention, I will be waiting. Thank you!

Jon

Hi Jon - Thank you for your patience.

With some rest now … I knew the answer was simple :

Just the Lush^2 configuration. I already forgot.
A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R.

It may come across confusing, but while the Blaxius^2 "analog" is presented as just that, we ship them for analog interlink usage. But your application is just digital and the work out should be the same as with the digital (USB) Lush^2 cable. Also, in the beginning the Blaxius^2 was supposed to be digital as such (it of course inherently is because of its specs), until we found that it wouldn't work for the MScaler - Dave combo. This is how the explicit -D(igital) version emerged. And point is : that can NOT mimic the Lush^2 because of one shield being fixed in side. Not so with yours …

The (if all is right) shipped A: B-R, B: B-R may not make any sense for your digital application. So try the one I mentioned above and let me know what you think. But of course only tomorrow. Haha.

Kind regards,
Peter

Peter--

Thank you for providing information on the best configuration of the "analogue" Blaxius^2 for my Chord DAVE and MScaler application. I've reconfigured per your advice and I believe it does sound better.

I do have a few questions:

1) Why did you develop a separate "digital" cable specifically for use between the MScaler and Chord DACs?

2) Why did you say, in one of your posts above, that the "analogue" Blaxius^2 is the "better" cable?

3) Do you suggest I stick with the current "analogue" cable, in the current configuration, or could I get still better sound by using the "digital" version?

Finally, I would suggest you revise your description of the cables for your web shop. Apart from a few remarks about "digital" and "analogue" cables, there is very little to distinguish the two types of cables offered. For example, there is no reference, in the description of the digital cable, to potential use with Chord's MScaler and DACs. There is no warning in either description that it is appropriate or inappropriate to use a particular cable in a particular situation. Since you appear to have developed the two cables for two different applications, I would suggest that you give some examples of different applications in the descriptions. Just my thoughts.

Thanks again for your advice and attention. You have made a very fine sounding cable!

Jon

Jon,


Simple, because the early version of the MScaler/Dave combo did not allow the "analog" (the one you have) to work.



Because it has (many) more configuration possibilities. In this case it is quantitative, but if only a few sound better than the ones lacking in the digital version it is obviously also qualitative.


By all means, Yes !

Thank you for your advices Jon. I will surely look into it soon.
Peter