USB audio cracked... finally!

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

I'm thinking about getting a large vise to hold my head perfectly still while listening to music and moving my audio equipment into a sizeable humidor-like room to completely control the temperature and humidity.

 

Don't forget that even Air Conditioning in Quiet Mode can degrade low level detail.

We found that at another C.A. members unit, much to our surprise .

 If you also refrain from breathing, swallowing and blinking, we won't have to worry about more silly posts like this one either.

[Ralf11]

from acoustic noise or EMF via the mains?

 

my heat pump clearly shows up on the mains as distortion but only when switching (no claims as to effects on DACs, cracks or smack or audibility thereof)

[sandyk]

30 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

from acoustic noise or EMF via the mains?

 

 Acoustic. A gentle " hissing" type sound..

[fas42]

I would be worried about the electrical interference aspects. My POV is, if I had real musicians in the room, playing - would the incidental acoustic noise be relevant to my being able to enjoy what I was listening to?

[barrows]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

UNLESS there are other factors at play

Yes, indeed.  Peter has hinted that how the LUSH's waveform reacts with the USB receiver is what makes it sound different.  I am guessing he means that this specific interaction determines to some degree the noise profile produced by the USB receiver (which is, of course, another high speed processor).  As it is well established that USB packet noise (at 8 kHz) is a real thing, showing up in the output of some DACs, this idea sounds at least plausible.

Certainly by no means I am I suggesting that data changes are occurring, that would be madness.

[GeneZ]

6 hours ago, barrows said:

This is a bit off topic, so I will just respond once:

 

This is not about hearing them, this is about understanding the technicalities of eliminating noise for the output of the component which produces the USB feed.  At Sonore we used to make high end custom servers.  Then we found a better way through ethernet distribution.  By putting the commercial computer gear (and every "audiophile" server I am aware of uses a commercial MoBo designed for low cost and general computing duties, not high end audio reproduction) isolated (Ethernet is transformer isolated and caries no ground connection) and away from the audio system and using a dedicated, well designed, very low power and ultra low noise device, designed specifically for audio rendering and nothing else, as the end point, the designer has total control over the quality of the USB output.

Another side benefit was lower cost to customer, along with the higher sound quality.  Super tweaked "audiophile" servers now go for upwards of five figures, while even the highest priced Renderers are relatively affordable. 

 

Could you please show some links to show examples of a Renderer.   Is the same kind of PC used by designers needing to create 3D imaging?

[Superdad]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

This is much more straight forward and cannot be subject to bias, unless one is actually experiencing aural hallucinations-in that case I would suggest not doing listening tests while blazing on LSD.

 

Sage advice! So where the heck where you when I was a teenager in the late 1970s?  I might never have bought—or wrecked—a couple of phono cartridges or fried that JBL tweeter. 

[GeneZ]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

I would be worried about the electrical interference aspects. My POV is, if I had real musicians in the room, playing - would the incidental acoustic noise be relevant to my being able to enjoy what I was listening to?

  You might find you enjoy the audio system better.  It would bring the sound down to scale. 

Have you ever enjoyed seeing an excellent model railroad layout?  Its fun and exciting to see all that fine detail done to scale.  Or,  would you rather have a real train running through your living room?

 

Next time you go to a concert hold your thumb up in front of your face like artists sometimes do. Take notice how small those performers on stage are in comparison to your thumb when listening at a good sounding distance.  Its all about scale and perspective.  Audio speakers play scale sized music.

 

I would not want to have the musicians playing in my room. I have been in too many rehearsals to know that you need to be standing back a bit before you can grasp a good perspective and a feel for the whole band playing.   When listening through audio speakers we are really playing with scale model trains and don't know it.

 

http://www.haddonheightslibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/TrainShow.jpg

[Teresa]

10 hours ago, GeneZ said:

...Some people can hear what you can not. Can you accept that?...

 

I can't speak for anyone else, however I have always accepted that other people may be able to hear something I cannot. ?  This is why I need to audition whatever I'm interested in purchasing in my system and I buy only with a satisfaction money-back guarantee.

 

Just because someone else loves something it doesn’t follow that I will too, I might, I might not, or whatever it is may not make any difference I can hear. I’m a subjectivist and believe each person should listen for themselves because they are the ones who listen to their music though whatever they are considering purchasing.

 

I wonder is it ego? Or some other reason why many audiophiles find it hard to admit that someone might be able to hear something they cannot? I proudly proclaim that many of you very well may be able to hear something I cannot! So what's the big deal?

[GeneZ]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

?

 

 

I wonder is it ego? Or some other reason why many audiophiles find it hard to admit that someone might be able to hear something they cannot? I proudly proclaim that many of you very well may be able to hear something I cannot! So what's the big deal? 

 

Ten people can have ten different sounding systems, and each person is happy with what they hear, yet know there is probably some room for improvement.

 

We saw it when we were kids.  Someone in class had something to share about. Most of the kids found it interesting.  But there was  always someone looking to put it down in some way.  Why?   Its a mystery.  Some people love not letting others enjoy what they have.   At least as kids it was more honest. It was plain to see they wanted to hurt the other in some way. Now,  as we get older.  The same trait remains with some, but they have learned ways to mask it over with some fine sounding pretense. Its found in every forum. 

 

Human nature is not what its cracked up to be. 

[PeterSt]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

I do not know what the LUSH does to obscure the detail, all I know is that some details are missing with the LUSH cable which are present with some other USB cables.

 

Hi Barrows, just a small response while I actually wanted to stay out of your personal experience and expression about it, which is 100% fine. But it seems it continues (not your fault).

 

The response of the cable is 180 degrees the other way as what you are so persistent about. It digs out details I never heard anywhere in my some times whole life of experience with an album. And btw I can easily say this because I already have been saying this for a very long time. But it cooperates with your system, requires tuning there for sure, and apparently your system does not allow for that or you just didn't get into it. The detail I am talking about is in the LOWER regions, though impeded by high frequency (read: you will not perceive that as as such by cymbals or the like; merely by how overtones of a piano excel and completely change the picture. Or how a snare drum receives more body because of way more delineated "tone" behavior).

 

10 hours ago, barrows said:

but as far as my experience goes, there is no way any directly connected server can perform as well as the best Renderers.

 

Well, my experience is exactly the other way around. Nothing is perfect and because it isn't, it requires "tuning". A setup like I propose (you refer to a normal MoBo, which in the end it is but in the more end is not that at all) allows for that tuning.

Remember why XXHighEnd saw light.

 

Barrows, one thing for cheering up (definitely): It still was you with the Buffalo experiments (I did the same but hated the sound), you AFAIK coming up with the Crystek as the very first. Soon after they appeared in all of our D/A converters ...

 

10 hours ago, barrows said:

we disagree on many things

 

So Yes, but No. 

Plus it is virtual because this could be the first time we talk to each other.

 

@People, there is/was nothing wrong with how Barrows publicly reacted at his Lush purchase well over a year ago (he was just the most honest). Today, however, Barrows feels inclined to be more explicit about it. His job did not change so it won't be that, I think (?). We can go on with this discussion, but it won't change the mind of all of the others. It won't change Barrows' mind either. But I have to repeat: the Lush encourages for MORE detail, while not showing that in the wrong direction (which would be tongue clicks and wound guitar string strokes). So I hope this tempers the discussion (which, I'm afraid, is mixed with Lush^2 behavior).

I also think we need to respect everybody's interpretation. As long as that is not "it doesn't make a difference because it can't make a difference" I am fine with either direction. But now I am biased ...

[PeterSt]

14 hours ago, look&listen said:

On 12/22/2018 at 8:42 AM, PeterSt said:

Name would be Lush-2 and not Lush^3 (for obvious reasons)

No not obvious to ordinary people! Not a clue why, so why say so?

Maybe explain please?

 

Lush^2 has more than 10,000 configuration possibilities (I should write a small program to really dig that out);

Lush^3 would have 10,000*10,000 possibilities for that matter (the ^3 denotes that). Btw, this would be similar to cascading two, or use a Blaxius^2 behind a Lush^2.

 

When a Lush^2 config is fixated there is nothing to change any more. 1 config only. We can't call that Lush because it(s name) already exists. Lush-2 (or Lush MII) would be fine.

 

Btw, you could be the first to order one. No return possibilities because it is not advised. Haha.

But what I should do is have one made for myself. And try to interpret the burning-in period. The problem is that I don't want to. It's a psychological thing. I mean, why would I try to fixate a config I (and everybody) like, while we all refuse to try a few other configs more. I think I tried 10. And with the current one I gave up. Really. With the Blaxius^2 behind it, I tried 4 or 5 of that, went back to one Lush^2 config briefly, but stuck to the already known best Lush^2 and the 5th attempt of the Blaxius^2.

How mad do we need to get ?

 

So in the end you are right. It should be fixated and then hope it is for the better again. I'll make one.  

[Solstice380]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

So in the end you are right. It should be fixated and then hope it is for the better again. I'll make one.  

 

That's the spirit!

 

 

[matthias]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

But I have to repeat: the Lush encourages for MORE detail, while not showing that in the wrong direction (which would be tongue clicks and wound guitar string strokes). So I hope this tempers the discussion (which, I'm afraid, is mixed with Lush^2 behavior).

 

Peter,

just for my understanding of Lush and Lush^2:

The original Lush is unshielded?

Thanks

 

Matt

[PeterSt]

17 minutes ago, Solstice380 said:

 

LOL

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, matthias said:

The original Lush is unshielded?

 

Hi Matt,

 

Haha, of course the original Lush is shielded and it connects it through from connector housing to connector housing (which would be the official thing). So it is a bit of the other way around; the Lush^2 (although bearing 3 screens) allows for the shields to not be connected through to the connector houding. One side or both sides. And the cable just keeps on working error free in all circumstances that I know of (I mean, error free as in measured). Or heard of from others, for that matter.

 

Regards,

Peter

[look&listen]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

the Lush^2 (although bearing 3 screens) allows for the shields to not be connected through to the connector housing

But with favorite Lush^2 config (& most all I saw discussed) USB shields connected through. Not recall much/any discussion of unconnected shields configurations. Was important point for my curiosity since JSSS-360 not connect shields at endpoints (yes, aware of difference of DC, USB, ??).

Was hoping Lush^2 experiments would add data of listening reports & technical theorizing to question of connected vs. isolated shield housings. Still waiting.

But for these troubled times one must manage ones expectations. 

 

Note: I only think of Lush^2. My belief is original Lush now obsolete, and dismayed Barrows talked so much about old news. Maybe he listen to Lush^2, or not talk so much on subject. 

 

 

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, look&listen said:

Was important point for my curiosity since JSSS-360 not connect shields at endpoints

 

Assumed you refer to the Lush JSSG tweaks ... the inner shield (the original one) connects to the connectors. Always. This thus contrary to the Lush^2 where it can be omitted.

I don't recall that I officially registered a config without shields connected (either side). But I am sure I tried (or maybe I just tried whether it worked error-free ? - I forgot). Anyway, I did not register one, so it wasn't any (real) good (but still, that already would give countless possibilities / permutations).

 

 

[look&listen]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Lush^2 has more than 10,000 configuration possibilities--

Lush^3 would have 10,000*10,000 possibilities for that matter (the ^3 denotes that)

Ah, Ok, so "^" mean "power of". Not get that before. Maybe not agree, but understand you thinking now (maybe time to move out of 'massive configuration possibilities' mode?). Thx for explanation.

 

At least Phasure naming systems much better then (total lack of?) __NIX naming conventions 

As pro programmer learned couple of enterprise naming systems, even invent couple for me, so know value. Recent splashes of Linux/AF command & program names in these forums, remind me of most awful task of reverse engineering program (for rewrite in diff. language) which used 1, 2, 3 letter variable names. Source code must speak to humans, not some sterile, incomprehensible, ideal of (false) efficiency or geek 'cool' (IMNOHO).

[PeterSt]

Try assembly (Assembler). 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, look&listen said:

Ah, Ok, so "^" mean "power of". Not get that before. Maybe not agree

 

Of course not. Because the power of 1 = 1.

Anyway, it was meant to come across as "squared" (but as in: ultimately more than Lush^1).

[look&listen]

44 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Try assembly (Assembler). 

Of course!

Or, Machine Language. Did that with binary toggles & Hex dials. Not fun, but now long in misty past 

[Ralf11]

12 hours ago, Teresa said:

I wonder is it ego? Or some other reason why many audiophiles find it hard to admit that someone might be able to hear something they cannot? I proudly proclaim that many of you very well may be able to hear something I cannot! So what's the big deal?

 

This is not the issue at all.  There are well-known differences in hearing ability documented in numerous scientific papers.

 

The real issue is the loose talk about difference, unsupported by any sort of testing, which conflates expectation bias with hearing.

 

The worst examples are those that violate physics, not that the perps know enough about physics to live in reality at all.

[fas42]

16 hours ago, GeneZ said:

  You might find you enjoy the audio system better.  It would bring the sound down to scale. 

Have you ever enjoyed seeing an excellent model railroad layout?  Its fun and exciting to see all that fine detail done to scale.  Or,  would you rather have a real train running through your living room?

 

Next time you go to a concert hold your thumb up in front of your face like artists sometimes do. Take notice how small those performers on stage are in comparison to your thumb when listening at a good sounding distance.  Its all about scale and perspective.  Audio speakers play scale sized music.

 

I would not want to have the musicians playing in my room. I have been in too many rehearsals to know that you need to be standing back a bit before you can grasp a good perspective and a feel for the whole band playing.   When listening through audio speakers we are really playing with scale model trains and don't know it.

 

http://www.haddonheightslibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/TrainShow.jpg

 

Ummm, I work differently. I aim for comparable scale - which means that what I would like to hear depends on the recording. Solo piano, Spanish guitar - the instrument is only a few feet away; orchestral, like being in a pretty good seat in the audience. Rock, say 10, 20 feet from the instruments, and not via some crap PA.

 

Which means my room expands and shrinks, acoustically, when I'm listening. If I have on a good release of Led Zep, then my room is a gargantuan space, reaching way back in the hills; and then shrinks back to total intimacy, with a single female voice close to the microphone.

 

I love good scale models; but I want to experience the intensity and bite of the "real thing", with music ...

[GeneZ]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, I work differently. I aim for comparable scale - which means that what I would like to hear depends on the recording. Solo piano, Spanish guitar - the instrument is only a few feet away; orchestral, like being in a pretty good seat in the audience. Rock, say 10, 20 feet from the instruments, and not via some crap PA.

 

Which means my room expands and shrinks, acoustically, when I'm listening. If I have on a good release of Led Zep, then my room is a gargantuan space, reaching way back in the hills; and then shrinks back to total intimacy, with a single female voice close to the microphone.

 

I love good scale models; but I want to experience the intensity and bite of the "real thing", with music ...

  Yes.... I was referring to groups of musicians playing in a room/hall. Acoustic guitar to would want to play up close.  

 

The secret to what is missing I learned about way back in the seventies.  And, did it for myself in the eighties.  Digital Time delay. (not surround sound) .  Place speakers behind you and to the sides.  One manufacturer recommended getting cheap speakers with large  woofers and disconnect the tweeters...  Set the speakers on their backs - at ear level-  facing the ceiling.  Too many who tried surround sound with satellite speakers with little bass, and with active tweeters.  That skews a realistic acoustic  "room effect."   Surround sound on the other hand is not an adjustable time delay system and not having the same effect.

 

In the eighties I had a small room when I was a resident manager of a fine country inn and dinning. Quite a small room.  But,  when set up carefully, one would think (on better recordings) that one was seated in an actual live performance.  Turn off the delay speakers?  And the sound would shrink to a small spot on the front speakers. 

 

Also amazing to learn..   When listening to a live performance the DB level in front of you is not really as loud as one would think.  The nice thing is that you could be listening to a live performance and be able to talk to the person next to you. Same with a well set up time delay. 

 

At one time I had thoughts of opening up my own shop with only a small pair of speakers on display. Then watch the reactions when they hear a concert hall effect.   As with almost all good things... the competition ignored exploring it and went to making bigger and bigger (much more expensive) speakers and amps.  So,  what they end up with?  Is to be sitting a few feet in front of the band.  To each his own.

 

I have not figured out how to do that at present, because the delay units I have seen are old.  And, newer preamps only offer single outs these days. 

 

But, if you wanted to hear Led Zep feeling like you are actually seated in the Fillmore?   Time delay. And with big cheap speakers in the back with their tweeters disconnected.  Probably by also bypassing any crossover connected to the mid/woofers.  The speakers up front can be small.  I once had it demoed with those little "David" speakers sold in the seventies.  There was a big laugh when the one demoing switched off the delay speakers.  Because we were assuming the sound was emanating from one of the big speakers found in the listening room.  We all looked at each other and laughed.   But,  no one ever pursued it seriously.  Its one of the missing links of audio realism.