USB audio cracked... finally!

[manisandher]

24 minutes ago, lmitche said:

I have truly enjoyed listening to classical music for the first time in a long while with this cable.

 

Haha... This kind of matches my experience too, but not just with classical. It's like I've rediscovered genres of music that I've loved in the past, but that I haven't listened to much for a long time (e.g. my comment about late-'60s/early-70s British rock in one of my early posts). Everything becomes musically engaging with the Lush.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

I think we can now safely say that the Lush 'works as advertised' (although I'd still love to hear more listening impressions from new users).

 

I was really enjoying the technical discussion earlier. For those of you who are technically-minded, could you offer your thoughts on the following please?

 

How can a USB cable make the system sound more musically satisfying?

 

Personally, I think it's all about timing - reflections and ringing in the USB cable that are inevitable at the RF frequencies that USB is working at.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

How can a USB cable make the system sound more musically satisfying?

 

I pass in advance. 

 

3 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Personally, I think it's all about timing - reflections and ringing in the USB cable that are inevitable at the RF frequencies that USB is working

 

Seems impossible to me. This, with the notice that "we" Phasure NOS1 owners can observe USB errors and no USB errors are there anyway (maybe once in a while a single one, but this won't change the sound).

 

Mani, maybe you recall the moment that the SFS buffer size could be set so small in XXHighEnd, that we were able to hear missing samples. So at the senders end at least, and with that specific XXHighEnd update, we can force the system to not send out all the samples. Speed stays the same, but sound gets thinner and thinner, until it is totally clear that just samples miss. This implies NO USB errors.

It thus is the proof that at least "somewhere" things can clearly change while nothing reports it (also no buffer underruns etc. at the software side of things).

 

Now if reflections back to the source could leak into the transmitter (in the PC) then a chance would exist that it is indeed related to reflections. But now I can only speculate because I don't know a thing about USB transmitters. Maybe later. 

 

Thanks,

Peter

[rickca]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

I pass in advance.

Peter, I assume things like isolation and signal integrity are still just as important to sound quality with the Lush.  Is that correct?  I ask only because I haven't got a clue what you have done differently with the design of this cable.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, rickca said:

Peter, I assume things like isolation and signal integrity are still just as important to sound quality with the Lush.

 

Hi Rick,

 

Isolation is but only because it changes SQ for the better.

Careful now, because I base this solely on the fact that the NOS1a is galvanically isolated inside between the USB receiver and the i2s interface (or DAC chips if you like) and I know how much that helps for jitter (I measured this).

How isolation in the USB cable (read : in front of the USB receiver) can change the sound more, is speculating. But the jitter I could measure without any isolation v.s. the isolation in front of i2s went from "easily measurable" to beyond analyzer limits. So I can't tell.

So something matters, but personally I can't tell why. And btw, the fact that the eye diagram changes, tells me nothing. Good enough is good enough as this is pure digital (no D/A conversion).

 

Signal integrity is derived from the above. So I never said anywhere that this is important in the first place as long as there are no errors which would always be audible (ticks (up to firmer ticks) and scratches (more subsequent errors like a few hundred in a row)).

 

The nice forcefield we have is between the following small subjects :

 

- I myself claim that USB isolation matters (quite a lot); remember that people know about the Intona because of me myself and I.

- I also claim that isolation can be improved upon by means of other types of isolation, up to more than one in the chain. Improved = also : improved SQ again.

- I next dare claim that signal integrity itself does nothing more than degrade SQ because of the processing involved (let's say that for this reason the Intona in the end loses from non-processing features like the Phisolator (the in-DAC isolation for USB). So all that actively builds the USB signal again, loses to our ears (but now I talk about NOS1a owners only).

 

So my conclusion is that signal integrity just does not overwhelm and when applied, only shows more downsides than upsides. Keep in mind once more : derived from the experiences of NOS1(a) owners.

 

To be clear : with the Lush I worked about all BUT signal integrity. Actually the contrary. This is why I dare to conclude (but not bet) that this just does not matter.

 

For the real influences, try to re-read the posts from Marce (I do this from the top of my head, so maybe I have the name wrong).

 

Regards,

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

[rickca]

22 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

To be clear : with the Lush I worked about all BUT signal integrity. Actually the contrary. This is why I dare to conclude (but not bet) that this just does not matter.

Thanks, Peter.  I suspected you would say this from the clues you've given about your Lush design considerations.  I'm sure Alex and John will find your analysis interesting.

[PeterSt]

31 minutes ago, rickca said:

I'm sure Alex and John will find your analysis interesting.

 

As long as nobody reads in my words (also not in between the lines) that I suggest that the Lush is a replacement for any of the devices people happily use. So I am NOT saying that at all. I just don't know (also don't like to know it) and I did not see any experience about such "replacement" as well (at least not yet).

So I hope it is clear that the Lush serves a very different purpose and at least nothing about signal integrity at all; it seems an unrelated subject (hey, to me).

[rickca]

50 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

So I am NOT saying that at all.

Peter, I'm not trying to suggest you meant anything of that nature.  Sorry if my comment made you think that is how I interpreted your response.

[lmitche]

The USPCB > ISO REGEN(LPS-1) > Lush Cable chain is just sounding extraordinary here and beats the other combinations, Lush cable only (no ISO REGEN), no Lush cable (2USPCBs+ISOsounding REGEN), and Lush > ISO REGEN > USPCB chain.

 

The ISO REGEN feeding the Lush cable brings out the best of both and seems completely complimentary and additive, (addictive as well).  The Lush only image can be a bit too transparent at times and the ISO REGEN adds weight where needed, but not too much.  There is detail delivered with the ISO REGEN that is missing otherwise, like details during the quiet passages that form the connective tissue of so many classical music pieces.The Lush cable brings a level of timbre, harmonic density and musicality that was missing before.  The combination is just beautiful.

 

All for now, thanks again Peter, Alex and John,

 

Larry

[fas42]

6 hours ago, manisandher said:

I was really enjoying the technical discussion earlier. For those of you who are technically-minded, could you offer your thoughts on the following please?

 

How can a USB cable make the system sound more musically satisfying?

 

Personally, I think it's all about timing - reflections and ringing in the USB cable that are inevitable at the RF frequencies that USB is working at.

 

Mani.

 

It's mighty simple. Musically satisfying is the outcome every time if there are no disturbing artifacts in the sound - these artifacts don't necessary have to be obvious, in the way that pops and crackles are in playing LPs; digital sound anomalies may be essentially 'invisible' to one's conscious mind, but if you remove them, and then re-insert them, then it does become obvious ...

 

If a cable, or anything else, helps to attenuate these defects in the sound then it is an improvement, for that system. All the cables that don't assist this process, by allowing the circuitry to function more 'correctly' and as intended, will be shown up as being "not as good".

 

The precise reason will usually revolve around aspects of the fact that all very high speed electrical behaviour generates noise which is much harder to isolate sensitive circuitry from - the faster the signals, the more effort required to mitigate interference.

[PeterSt]

Just now, fas42 said:

It's mighty sim

 

Thank you fas. Maybe it is as simple as you said.

Anyway it could be one of my own texts. But whether people dig that so easily is something else. 

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, rickca said:

Peter, I'm not trying to suggest you meant anything of that nature.

 

Rick, I am (and was) 1000% sure you did not. But I also want to make it the most clear that I don't stipulate on any whatever negatives on the Uptone product(s). So it is merely about what others might think of it and how things so easily start to have their own life in the CA forum.

 

Side note : it is very special how two competitors (which actually are not at all that) go through a same misery and in the end can support each other mentally. This is priceless and I would never ever want to destroy that "feeling".

And to answer your never answered question : yes, same chip (but by now you know that by long).

 

On a very different note, might you be able to find it, you may see how on the Phasure forum I tell about John possibly reading my - and other's posts to next bring up article #1, #2 and #3. Pos-si-bly.

By now I even don't care because the learning is mutual and in the end it is about progress in audio.

Funny eh ? But it really can exist. And Alex is the glue.

Even more importantly is that not so many are around who don't want to get rich over you, the customer. And still, in the very end it will happen (kind of) automatically. Over here we call that (financially technical) Goodwill. Someone like Alex and with him John (this is math) deserve that.

 

[Dev]

1 hour ago, lmitche said:

The USPCB > ISO REGEN(LPS-1) > Lush Cable chain is just sounding extraordinary here and beats the other combinations, Lush cable only (no ISO REGEN), no Lush cable (2USPCBs+ISOsounding REGEN), and Lush > ISO REGEN > USPCB chain.

 

 

Maybe another Lush before the ISO-R ?

[lmitche]

20 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

Maybe another Lush before the ISO-R ?

I don't know, they do different things.  Maybe? Someone else will need to test, not me, I'm delighted with the new status quo.

[greenleo]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

It's mighty simple. Musically satisfying is the outcome every time if there are no disturbing artifacts in the sound - these artifacts don't necessary have to be obvious, in the way that pops and crackles are in playing LPs; digital sound anomalies may be essentially 'invisible' to one's conscious mind, but if you remove them, and then re-insert them, then it does become obvious ...

 

If a cable, or anything else, helps to attenuate these defects in the sound then it is an improvement, for that system. All the cables that don't assist this process, by allowing the circuitry to function more 'correctly' and as intended, will be shown up as being "not as good".

 

The precise reason will usually revolve around aspects of the fact that all very high speed electrical behaviour generates noise which is much harder to isolate sensitive circuitry from - the faster the signals, the more effort required to mitigate interference.

I must say that the mighty simple that you mentioned is not simple.  The post sounds like getting rid of the bad things, the good things will surface--which I agree with.  This statement is true no matter Lush is invented or not.  Hence no real explanation given.

 

What makes Lush sounds better is unknown technically or I've missed the explanation.  Certainly, this magic is repeatable, hence this is engineering or science.  The engineer allows the circuit to function more correctly is to get rid of the bad things.  If it sounds worse, then probably the implementation was not good enough, the theory is not good enough, ...  By proposing a theory, testing it, modifying it if necessary is a way to proceed.

[fas42]

20 minutes ago, greenleo said:

What makes Lush sounds better is unknown technically or I've missed the explanation.  Certainly, this magic is repeatable, hence this is engineering or science.  The engineer allows the circuit to function more correctly is to get rid of the bad things.  If it sounds worse, then probably the implementation was not good enough, the theory is not good enough, ...  By proposing a theory, testing it, modifying it if necessary is a way to proceed.

 

I've read between the lines of what's been said, and it's fairly clear to me that the circuitry receiving the USB data, and passing on the data therein to the DAC is typically sensitive to the actual nature of the electrical waveforms, aside from the data content - and that includes the power and ground links. Lush appears to slow down the data transitions, it modifies the waveforms to some degree - which experimentally has been shown to improve the SQ. If one wishes to rigorously investigate, then one could create a special test rig, with the ability to mimic USB data transmission; but with the ability to vary the precise nature of the waveforms on each line in a totally controllable way.

[greenleo]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I've read between the lines of what's been said, and it's fairly clear to me that the circuitry receiving the USB data, and passing on the data therein to the DAC is typically sensitive to the actual nature of the electrical waveforms, aside from the data content - and that includes the power and ground links. Lush appears to slow down the data transitions, it modifies the waveforms to some degree - which experimentally has been shown to improve the SQ. If one wishes to rigorously investigate, then one could create a special test rig, with the ability to mimic USB data transmission; but with the ability to vary the precise nature of the waveforms on each line in a totally controllable way.

Thank you for your reply fas42.

 

0. First of all, I agree with you that USB is sensitive to the actual nature of the electrical waveform.  

 

My confusion are:

1. While you are saying that Lush slow down the data transitions, PeterSt did stated that "USB3 just sounds better".  I believe USB3 is faster.  This seems a contradiction.

 

2. I cannot comprehend the meaning of "Lush appears to slow down the data transition". Do you mean less number of bytes is transmitted per unit time?

 

3. PeterSt's POV for SI.  "Good enough is good enough as this is pure digital" seems contradictory to point 0.

 

I find point 0 too point 3 not totally coherent.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, greenleo said:

2. I cannot comprehend the meaning of "Lush appears to slow down the data transition". Do you mean less number of bytes is transmitted per unit time?

 

Slower rise (/fall) time of the single wave.

 

2 hours ago, greenleo said:

PeterSt did stated that "USB3 just sounds better".  I believe USB3 is faster.  This seems a contradiction.

 

At first sight, yes. But when looking closer, we see that USB3 is not utilized for its speed when it is about a USB2 transmission (and with D/A converters it is always that (AFAIK)). So USB3 has a larger capacity. It's the car which can do a 200 and therefore accelerates fast when going from 60 to 70. The car doing a 100 can also accelerate from 60 to 70, but not as fast. It struggles more.

[fas42]

Thanks for filling in, Peter!

 

To say things another way, the same number of bytes are always transmitted, but each byte is represented by a data line switching on and off a number of times, and it's the speed with which the line switches each time that matters, how fast the voltage goes from one state to the other.

 

Make sense?

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Make sense?

 

Perfectly ...

[rickca]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Slower rise (/fall) time of the single wave.

Peter, this is funny.  Uptone says the ISO REGEN 'completely REGENerates the data signals that cables are messing up'.  Does an ISO REGEN at the receiving end of a Lush cable mess up what the Lush is doing?

 

Also, how does the Lush affect transients in the music?

 

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, rickca said:

 

Also, how does the Lush affect transients in the music?

 

How does XXHighEnd do it ?

Welcome to the wonderful world of audio.

[rickca]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

How does XXHighEnd do it ?

Welcome to the wonderful world of audio.

I wasn't asking 'how can the Lush possibly have an effect on transients'.  I'm asking what effect does this slower rise/fall time of the single wave have on how transients sound.  I'm also asking whether regeneration of the signal at the receiving end of a Lush is at cross purposes with what the Lush is doing.

[PeterSt]

10 minutes ago, rickca said:

Uptone says the ISO REGEN 'completely REGENerates the data signals that cables are messing up'.  Does an ISO REGEN at the receiving end of a Lush cable mess up what the Lush is doing?

 

I must admit, this is a very good question. It could also answer the question of why the Regen (without ISO) does not sound good for "us NOS1a" owners. But I never realized it. So ... we are almost all using the Clairixa USB cable and anything not as good as that will destroy (again, I am only thinking of this now). Thus, the best signal can not be the best signal throughout when something is in the middle of it of lesser quality (and this is what I assume with any "chip" in the middle).

On a side note : about every NOS1a owner also owns the Intona. And everybody also owns two Clairixa's. One before and one after the Intona.

 

Now the Lush ...

 

Say that it is my pose that the Lush acts as a filter (this is not a literal filter, but you may look at it like that, as in my "tube" example earlier on). Then it would indeed be mighty stupid if that signal is improved upon again. So I'd say that this should be noticable ... if you have the Lush try to compare with and without Regen. Or, if you own the ISO Regen, try to put it near the PC (so not at the DAC side) and now compare with and without it. So what I suggest with this latter option is that the Re-gen part is undone again by the Lush (explicitly) but that the isolation part remains to be active. Net, the ISO-Regen in the chain should be for the better, but only when at the PC side.

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, rickca said:

I wasn't asking 'how can the Lush possibly have an effect on transients'.  I'm asking what effect does this slower rise/fall time of the single wave have on how transients sound.

 

OK, try again please. Unless you dig my answer "more lush". Haha.