USB audio cracked... finally!

[Speed Racer]

18 minutes ago, One and a half said:

I doubt a cable can suppress noise from the PC, since the prime purpose of the cable is provide little to no loss in the transmission. The OP would prefer the mix of noise from the PC and how it interacts with the DAC, to that end, I have no problem with. 

 

For USB, I'll stick with isolation/PC Card treatment methods to block leakage currents from the PC in combo with a cable that can provide reliability.

 

Agreed. USB cracked is to not use it at all......

[Speed Racer]

I still don't see where it says that cable suppresses noise put on the USB lines by the computer BEFORE they exit the computer. I know why...they don't! That cable is only effective IF there is EFI affecting the sound quality. Other cable can certainly block EFI as well.

[Speed Racer]

The only claims made revolve around EMI.....

[Speed Racer]

1 hour ago, acg said:

 

I have the same PC/Dac setup as Mani.  The PC is a high power multicore Xeon (mine is 20 cores hyperthreaded to 40 cores but most people go for about 12-14 cores + hyperthreading) which run the os in RAM (hence has no SSD or HDD) and has a managed direct ethernet connection to the MusicServer that contains the music.  The XXHE sofware manages not only the physical hardware (such as optimising the operating system and underclocking - my PC runs at about 400MHz when music is playing and draws less than 50 watts) but also the music library and upsampling (32/768 or 16x Redbook).  The PC is powered by a LPS.

 

The Regen never improved anything with this particular dac and for a while many of us used an Intona and USB cards, but those cards were always a stop-gap and brought as many issues as they solved.  With the latest dac upgrade the system is as follows...

 

mobo USB port >> Lush cable >> dac

 

None of those other "USB enhancers" are required because they actually degrade the sound.  Please note though that the dac has proper USB isolation built in which renders all those USB devices and USB cards irrelevant and detrimental.

 

I'll agree with Mani when he says that the current Phasure PC/dac combo is the most musical digital I've ever heard.  An important part of that is the USB cable and The Lush is probably the best money I've ever spent in audio.

 

My eyes almost got stuck in the rolled up position while reading this post.....

[Speed Racer]

Lately,  just about any thread with manisandher posting often is an infomercial for Phasure. Usually with posts sprinkled in to bash Yggdrasil.  I can't take any of this very seriously as USB cables don't subtract noise. All they can do is alter it. Of course, the only way to get rid of the noise is with a products like the ISO Regen that isolate all the noise for the source. Now that Phasure has their own design, of course we get to hear how the ISO Regen is inferior.

 

Threads like this are useless because they are completely subjective with people that have demonstrated no ability to be unbiased.

[Speed Racer]

21 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

If altering this noise tenders it inaudible, is it not equivalent to removing it from audibility?

 

Anyway, cables can reduce noise as I showed with the noise plots of the Lnc cable

 

The LNC plots showed that the reduce noise caused by EMI.  What if there is not noise caused by EMI?? What if all you have is noise put on the cable by the computer itself? 

[Speed Racer]

23 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Why would emi noise not arise from the computer itself? But you said USB cables don't reduce noise, you didn't say don't reduce noise which isn't emi - what noise are you talking about then?

 

More correctly those lnc plots show noise at high frequencies are reduced - emi, RFI - it isn't specified

 

The shielding reducing the EMI noise. So it would be external sources of EMI that would otherwise pollute the signal on the cable.

[Speed Racer]

9 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

It's the ferrous impregnated dielectric that affords the reduction in high frequency noise, not what is typically called the shield in a USB cable.

 

It reduces both the intrusion & the emission of RFI.

 

Could this change the noise profile reaching the receiving end of the USB cable?

 

Does it matter how the noise arises on the cable?

 

Intrusion from where? Outside the cable. Emission from where? The cable. That does not mean the cable reduces any noise the computer injects into the cable via the pins in the connector. It just means the cable reduces the noise RFI would otherwise add and does not emit as much RFI as (some) other cables.

[Speed Racer]

22 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Trafo isolation sounds like Ethernet.  Except that (Ethernet built-in transformer isolation) doesn’t always work completely to stop noise, as I found out in my system.

 

I still don't get this. Look here:

 

 

How does the noise get past the magnetic transformer?

[Speed Racer]

8 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

Uhh....whenever I read two words - "manisandher" and "Yggy"......

 

 

Seriously! Any review by manishandher of any Schiit product is suspect and I would be unable to trust it. 

[Speed Racer]

10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Then you are looking at the wrong DIYINHK version. 

The one costing $109 sure has isolation. And much more than the Schiit offers. Like 1024 DSD support. Hahaha. Oops.

 

But it is still USB. Who wants that. 

 

You might want to reserve criticism for a product until you have a chance to hear it in action......

[Speed Racer]

This is all going off the deep end. We are dealing with digital data here. This isn't analog where the cable can act as a filter to color the analog signal. Assuming none of the bits get flipped, the ones and zeroes are all fine and don't change regardless of the USB cable used. We should be looking at ways to cause the receiver to do as little as possible to contaminate the circuits on the DAC. This would include low noise power, proper ground with no ground loops, and data signal that causes the USB receiver to be as clean as possible. Most cables, with or without an isolator of some type, get the one and zeroes right. It's the other stuff that goes along with it that is the problem.

 

Because of this, a cable that works well for one DAC USB receiver may not work well for another. For one DAC, the UpTone Audio ISO Regen/USPCB combo might work best. For another, it might be ISO Regen and this lush cable. For another, who knows? If you have no way of looking at what happens inside the DAC, all you can do is test to see which sounds better to your ear. But the idea than any one cable is the end all solution is ludicrous!

[Speed Racer]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

Not especially directed at JoeWhip, but just a comment:

 

People really need to get off Mani's case. He likes the Phasure and says so. He doesn't say other DACs suck, just that his favorite is the Phasure.  He doesn't in general talk down other DACs. He doesn't like the Schiit Yggy. His taste.

If you look around the audio based internet, there are lots of people who think the Yggy is great. There's also a not insignificant minority that thinks it really doesn't sound right.  So Mani isn't alone. 

 

I don't see why that is a problem. Other people like Lampizator, PSAudio, Mytek, etc.  Can't people express a preference either positively or negatively without getting attacked?

When someone else doesn't love a product you think is the best thing you've ever heard, they aren't attacking you personally. They're saying that for their ears and taste, they didn't like "X".

 

Grownups can handle that without going "forum crazy" on another poster or criticising him at every opportunity.

 

I don't have a problem with any of this except that Mani is almost maniacal is his distaste for Yggy. I saw this BEFORE I owned any Schiit products.....I don't give a damn if someone doesn't like what I like. What I care about about is the ferocity at which he attacks the product. Your "He doesn't like the Schiit Yggy." is just not an accurate portrayal of his presentation.

 

This attitude of his along with exaggerations regarding Phasure, for me, calls into question anything I read by him.

 

If you and all the folks that gave a reputation to this post don't see that, you are deluding yourselves.

[Speed Racer]

40 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Excuse me. Go back and read the post (which I gave reputation to). Mani is very upfront and transparent about his personal impressions and opinions. That is his right. It is also my right to interpret his statements as I see fit. Its my right to interpret any subjective impressions as I see fit, as well as interpret the veracity of objective measurements as I see fit.

 

As it is my right to do so as well......

[Speed Racer]

Let's see. So far you have the best DAC in the world, the best USB decrapifier in the world, the best USB cable in the world, and now the best speakers in the world.

 

Yet, somehow, I am not surprised......

[Speed Racer]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

He hasn’t made comparisons to particular products.....

 

No he hasn't. Because no other products compare......

[Speed Racer]

1 hour ago, acg said:

 

If more companies were capable of designing and building matching amplifiers and speakers rather than doing one or the other I think that audio technology would prosper as a result and we would all be better off.  

 

What Peter does is off-the-charts...an entire ecosystem from playback software >> operating system >> audio computer >> cables >> dac >> amplifiers >> speakers.  That IS something truly extraordinary.  He is not a guy that concentrates on one or perhaps two parts of that chain...he sees all  parts as co-dependent and as a result is able to make some unique advances into sound reproduction.

 

I have all but the amps/speakers but will hear them some day.  In the meantime I am a little too preoccupied with triodes and enormous horns.

 

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Very, very few people understand the importance of this concept - it's not about adding "goodness" to the ensemble; it's about removing all the crucial bits of "badness" that may impact the overall result, in any and every area of the whole.

 

You guys are right....everyone other company that makes the same type of products should just close their shops now. They can't compete....

[Speed Racer]

I would like Peter explain how this cable is affecting the sound output of a DAC considering the cable is carrying digital data. How, exactly, does the cable make the sound quality better? Since Peter designs cables, DACs, and speakers, this should be simple to do. 

[Speed Racer]

10 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Ok folks, this thread is about the Lush cable.  Let's keep it there. This thread has been useful to those of us that take an empirical view of this hobby.  We don't need another thread where the usual bunch of wankers tell us we are delusional, or buying snake oil. We already know your opinions about this innovation and any future innovations shared on CA.  Don't bore us with more of your rhetoric.

 

PUT UP or SHUT UP!

 

200 Euros is more than a reasonable price for an audio cable. Either buy one and offer an informed opinion or go away!

 

Thank you very much.

 

Larry

 

 

Guess what, Larry, we have been talking about this "Lush" USB cable.

 

Here's the deal, with USB we are talking about digital data here. It's digital when it is transmitted and it is digital when it is received by the DAC. It's digital when the DAC moves the data out of the USB section via I2S to be processed further inside the DAC. 

 

As I have said before, just about any cable will get the data to the DAC without any bits being flipped. So, exactly what kind of effect can this "Lush" USB cable have? What does the cable deal with? We are talking four wires here. We have a differential signal for data (two wires), a +5vdc VCC wire, and a GND wire. That's it. Assuming the USB PHY on the DAC passes the right bits over I2S, how can the USB cable affect what comes out the analog section of the DAC?

 

Once again, we must assume the bits are making it into the DAC without being flipped. Assuming that, the only thing the "LUSH" USB cable can affect is how much in our out of spec the signals on the wire are compared to what they would have been with another cable. The cable can be in our out of spec in capacitance, impedance, attenuation, and shielding. Variations in these specs will make the USB PHY work differently. The USB PHY working differently will cause the USB PHY to put out different signals (noise) to the internal circuitry of the DAC (Unless, of course, the USB PHY is isolated from the rest of the DAC).

 

Can you setup a USB cable to cause these signals to make the DAC sound better or worse? Sure. Why not. However, not every DAC has the same USB circuitry. Even if they use the same USB chip, the rest of circuitry is likely to be different from DAC to DAC and most certainly from DAC manufacturer to DAC manufacturer. What does this mean? It means that to get a DAC to sound better with a "LUSH" cable, that cable is going to have to be custom made with that particular DAC in mind. That means a cable that makes a Phasure DAC sound better may make a Chord DAC sound worse.

 

So Peter selling one "Lush" cable to make absolutely no sense to me which is what I asked how his cable is able to affect sound coming from a DAC.  

[Speed Racer]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Unless there is a generic problem with the interaction of the digital in on USB and the following analogue ... there's likely to be setups where it makes no difference, or even makes it worse. But if there is a solid return policy then one can try it, knowing that  one is not "caught" with an accessory that doesn't fit, in a particular instance.

 

Odds are it makes it worse UNLESS specifically tuned for a particular hardware setup.

[Speed Racer]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

And allow me to add that while @cmarin may be known to own a Phasure NOS1a and it thus could be another of those "obvious" hoorays, he is not - and has not been using that for this Lushy experience; His NOS1a is on its way to here to become NOS1a/G3, so he must be using something else.

Now with this knowledge, let's have some deep interpretation on what I just said to Speed Racer in combination with each word from what I just quoted from cmarin, and then dare to draw some fine conclusion. Could be interesting.

?

 

What can I draw from those words? That he has expectation bias and that any cable you sent him would cause the same reaction.

 

Look, unless your "Lush" cable is flipping bits in the digital data stream, the zeroes and ones coming out of the computer are the same as those getting past the USB interface and into the the deeper parts of the DAC. Since you can't color zeroes and ones, your cable must be affecting the DAC USB interface in some other way. Whether that is good or not would be DAC specific.

 

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

[Speed Racer]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Because something like IP exists.

Besides that, it seems that you already all summed it up perfectly (derived from what has been said in this thread, so the question seems strange to begin with, and if not derived from this thread then apparentlyyou are smart enough to come up with the answers yourself) ,,, but is seems that you just lack that last bit of drawing the right conclusions, or don't want to conclude or are in denial or ... I don't know. Anyway, might you be constructively thinking instead of destructively, we would have another kind of Speed Racer. This means I could talk to you. Now you don't allow me in.

Anyway I can say it again you summed it up nicely (and is not easy to do - just saying).

 

So, are you going to tell me that all DAC USB implementations react positively to the "tuning" you are doing with your "Lush" cable? How about USB implementations that utilize some form of galvanic isolation? Whether it be using  the Silanna isolator chip or transformers?

[Speed Racer]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Just an example of being a bit too thick. It does NOT make it worse. You only like to believe that from your own reasoning + statistics (and admittedly you would be correct), but you can *see* that it does not make it worse.

 

If you can use your cable to tune a DAC to perform better, it means you can use a cable to tune a DAC to perform worse. 

[Speed Racer]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

I keep going back to less steep wave rise and fall times.  Run a really sharp transition through a speaker, not only the speaker but the system controlling it has a tough time.  Run a nicely shaped sine wave through the same system, piece of cake....

 

What does this have to do with the "Lush" cable? All this cable is doing is transmitting digital data encoded in an analog signal. The wave rise and fall times on the USB cable are not getting anywhere near the analog side of the DAC. 

[Speed Racer]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

How do you know this?

 

6 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

I told you that this would be the reply - it's very predictable

Now just wait for the reply post that says 'well if it's having an effect - show it'  - it's so predictable & even though I've foretold the response, they won't be able to help themselves - just watch

 

Explain the mechanism that would allow the rise and fall times on the USB cable to somehow make it to the analog output of the amp.