The greatest invention in/for Audio (Lush^2)

[Robert]

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

[PeterSt]

I have had the lush^2 cable for 8-9 months.

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

[kurb1980]

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. 

[badgerline]

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.

[badgerline]

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.

[badgerline]

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'.

[PeterSt]

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

[badgerline]

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 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'.

[Gerard]

Peter,

Long time no see 

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

Thanx

[PeterSt]

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

[badgerline]

Here you go:

[Gerard]

Thanx....

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

Grtz Gerard

[thankful]

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    

[badgerline]

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!

[PeterSt]

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

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