USB audio cracked... finally!

[Ralf11]

"mass of the connectors"  ????

[Ralf11]

8 hours ago, Panelhead said:

...USB-/TB3...

 

yes, what about Thunderbolt as implemented via USB-C ?

 

any hope there as an interface?

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, Panelhead said:

...USB-/TB3...

 

I mean does Thunderbolt as implemented via USB-C solve (or reduce) the problems in USB 2 as an interface?

 

 

[Ralf11]

it is new to those who think in terms of boxes, not circuits

 

they are most of the market (and I want to join them...)

[Ralf11]

45 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

The "filter" here is not filtering audio information. The goal is purely to present the ideal waveform to the receiver circuitry. There is a paper I referenced way above which demonstrates how sub-nS changes in rise time of a digital signal change the switching at a receiver circuit. Perhaps think of it not that the signal itself is ringing but that a fast transition "bangs" on the receiver transistors too hard causing an oscillation. This has nothing to do with phase error in the signal itself which is determined by the fundamental. It is about shunting the excess energy in the waveform and allowing the switch to switch smoothly.

 

Does this correlate to SQ? Maybe, maybe not depending on the isolation between the USB receiver and the DSD/IS2/PCM bus.

 

so, the proposed mechanism is that (some) bits are being changed from 0 to 1 or vice-versa?

 

if so, what sort of voltages are involved to do that?

[Ralf11]

Thx.   The mechanism as to how an overshoot of dV persisting for time interval dT would affect the clock or stream of bits or (??) is what I am trying to figure out.  Digital circuitry is not my area either...

[Ralf11]

115 dB for 30 s

 

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/PermissibleExposureTime.htm

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Why don't you explain specifically what your cable is doing to affect the sound coming out of the analog side of the DAC? 

 

 

it is possible that he doesn't know

 

or it could be a trade secret

[Ralf11]

How a frequency above 480Mhz might cause audible effects is the question...

 

Could a VHF like that alter an amplifier?  drive it into distortion that then affects audible factors?

[Ralf11]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

digital chattering

 

whuuuut??

[Ralf11]

Are you an engineer?

[Ralf11]

Sydney?

 

that would be digital chuttering then, as the bits will be upside down

 

motor mechanics are very useful to Ferrari owners...

[Ralf11]

what USB audio devices does he manufacture?

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

could you list the components for a fully competent system?  something that will sound truly amazing

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

... It's the fine tuning of a standard system that achieves "amazing" sound - IOW, it's a process, not an assembly of various boxes that tick various boxes. The latter is not quite correct, especially these days - it's easier than ever to acquire decent quality gear which can be very, very close, as is, to having everything in place.

...

 

 

describe the fine tuning

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

How many times have I been asked this ... ?

 

Usually it doesn't end well - I don't supply simple, straightforward answers that anyone can apply - and the other parties get frustrated, .

 

Since this place seems to have a high percentage of IT folks, and that's my background too, I will say that it is a process of debugging. Because, that's exactly how I see it - a computing system can be of enormous usefulness - or, a total disaster - what's the difference between the two? Quite often, the number of bugs - zero bugs equals happiness; lots of bugs, extreme frustration. And I see most audio system as having a substantial number of "bugs" - the only real solution is to track down each one, and fix it, in some manner - one after the other.

 

So, the fine tuning is a process of discovering each bug, and dealing with it. The bugs are infinite in variety, just like those in software - so there's little point in trying to describe them. Usually the biggest difficulty is understanding how to be become aware of them, that's a large part of the exercise. I normally do this by turning up the volume on 'difficult' recordings, and listening carefully - experience then helps in identifying the possible areas where a particular "bug" - an audible anomaly - has been triggered.

 

Anyway, this thread is about the Lush cable - further discussion should go in the blog area, or another thread.

 

are you unable to offer even a single example of a 'bug' ???

 

 

[Ralf11]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

... cables should not 90 degree cross ...

 

 

???

 

[Ralf11]

a list of common 'bugs'  would be very useful as it would allow someone to run down a check list for a smaller subset of 'bugs' that might apply, then run some tests on the subset

 

likely a generalized 'list' already exists conceptually, if not formally

[Ralf11]

either somebody needs to rip one of these things apart to find out what's inside, or they need to X-ray it

 

 

or use x-ray crystallography

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, Johnseye said:

 

My understanding is that all components benefit from a period of burn in.  Nothing unique here.

 

active components, yes

 

is the Lush active in some way?

[Ralf11]

Has anyone done a double-blinded listening test yet?

[Ralf11]

20 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I had two very similar glasses of Bourbon on Friday. Does that count? ... oh wait

 

 

No - not all.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Single malt Scotch would count tho...

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, AmusedToD said:

 

... I hear what I hear.  

 

 

 

Without testing to eliminate confirmation bias, you may be hearing something that is only in your mind.

 

Hearing is both a physical and a mental act.  Your mind interprets what your ears do.

[Ralf11]

sounds like science is annoying you Larry

 

 

[Ralf11]

If psychoacoustics deceives us but makes us happy then it should be cheap... a lot cheaper than fancy cables, DAC addons, etc.