USB audio cracked... finally!

[PeterSt]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

A proper cable works whether or not there is a separate ground path between the components.

 

???

 

27 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is no such principle. Current flows through all available paths in inverse proportion to their resistance.

 

???

 

I keep on saying : you are always right. I hope it is useful to some.

[PeterSt]

34 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

1 hour ago, mansr said:

A proper cable works whether or not there is a separate ground path between the components.

 

That's true, but USB ground is often required to be connected, even if the +5v supply is not needed by the device.

 

In case you missed it, this is not about any separate ground path etc. etc. Mansr just seems to like to read things which were never written.

In this case it is about a transformer (like from a PC) which is not connected to ground. Now be creative on how the return path goes. According to mansr this is everywhere, so we don't need to worry about anything. The latter is of course my own conclusion, but I guess that happens when you can't have a clue about why people say things.

[PeterSt]

We just put out a next small batch of 10 Lush'es and I kind of hope it is the last in a quantity which disturbs (haha). So with a few hours spare I just asked to apply an additional pair of measurement wires to the DAC I am going to use to measure. And then I am really going to do it ...

Finally. So stay tuned.

 

[PeterSt]

Thank you, Paul.

[PeterSt]

Oh, I very coincidentally found something else yesterday. It is almost to ridiculous to tell about :

 

I suppose that everybody at least once ran into pure static (noise) of the worst kind. Say that this can be compared to white noise, although undoubtedly someone (or everyone) will tell me that this can't be white noise for several reasons. Point is, because of the random nature of the digital data passed through the D/A conversion, the frequency is also evenly spread - at least that is my idea about it. Now, because this sound is window breaking (depending on the gain of the power amp and with the notice that static as such can not be attenuated), this brings a certain overall perceived (!) frequency spectrum. And what I try to tell to begin with, is that everybody who has receives this with a certain amplification chain, will perceive this nature today the same as tomorrow (rather never because it is so ear-shattering loud).

 

And so I am used to this sound myself which maybe occurs for two times a year. It always sounds the same.

But not so yesterday ...

 

Yesterday I had it for the first time with the Lush cable, and quite similar to what "we" perceive from music and a shift in frequency from highest to "lower" with certainly a more profound mid, this static now came across as completely "dark". Say that all the highest frequency "white" turned into a fair "brown". Much more powerful, actually more loud, but also not so much hurtful.

 

I know, everybody who tells me that this "A-B" can not be done, is inherently right. With two times a year and now one occasion of another situation ... how to do it. Still I am confident in my judgment. Something is "crazily" different and the USB cable is doing it.

What I actually say is that whatever one can doubt about with playing music and expectation bias, is not the case with this "test", assumed I am correct in the perceived difference and not my ears suddenly failing on me. So this is shattering hurting (but not the loudest) vs not hurting at all (but way louder).

 

... I now actually think : if *that* can't be measured at the output, then I don't know what can.

It is only that when I start thinking about how to incur for this "signal" for real, I have problems with a good repeatable signal. This will be the same problem as that people will start to (or should start to) say that such a signal is not random, because ...

 

Peter

[PeterSt]

54 minutes ago, mansr said:

With no ground connection, the packet noise is gone.

 

... which to me reads like a "and that's it". But that is not it at all, because it doesn't explain much.

So an addition :

 

And when there's decent isolation (with connected ground through the cable) the 8KHz is gone too.

 

Now it should be easier to explain the fact of USB noise disappearing when ... eh ...

Think of what "noise" in this case actually is.

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

Quote

Now it should be easier to explain the fact of USB noise disappearing when ... eh ...

Think of what "noise" in this case actually is.

Not sure what you're trying to say there.

 

Well, I imply the opposite of what I really said. So if you say that USB noise disappears when the ground is not there (after handshake) and I say the USB noise is not there with ground connected but galvanically isolated, what does it actually tell about the source of that noise. So the "noise" as such is current draw (to receive the packets (hey, or send them)). And thus the question, what actually causes the packet noise to not being present. And especially, where is it not present ? (we know, in the output, but ...)

 

And the general message was : these things are clear when stated (it is the truth so nothing wrong there) and accepted (we can measure it and maybe even hear it (better SQ)) but the WHY is way more interesting because then we might be able to make some real progress.

[PeterSt]

25 minutes ago, mansr said:

Secondly, it only helps if there is no other ground connection between the devices. In practice, this is rarely the case.

 

FWIW : My situation (the Phasure NOS1) won't bear no ground in the USB cable (at handshake). But of course - as you say yourself - there are other ground connections via a few back doors. Without really knowing, I feel that the shield is of more importance here and that capacitive loading of some sort messes up the signal. And no gnd means no shield either.

This is guessing because I never tried to have that part wrong on purpose. Just like the Lush is just "normal" on these aspects.

I think this is no subject. That of the USB noise is though (to really understand).

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, barrows said:

 

I have checked a few high end DACs which claim USB isolation, only to find the USB input ground to be common to the analog output ground, hmmm.  I would not call that isolated myself.

 

Hi Barrows - It is quite easy to make this mistake, as you will not see or measure this when you observe the DAC alone. At least in our case (NOS1a) this is so. It goes (interestingly) wrong when all IC connections are made (including USB cable) and the connection is made through the back door ... (with the notice that over an isolator you measure no connection)

NOS1a owners all know about "the famous black wire" which almost explicitly made that connection, but which (now laugh) is present to remove the USB noise. No, was, because with isolation (the "a" version) the USB noise is removed by that but this famous black wire made the connection now (and largely violated isolation, exactly as you say/saw). And so a switch popped up which now cuts this connection.

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's a contradiction. Something can't be both connected and isolated at the same time.

 

You are correct. But in this case we formally have the ground (and power if you want) at both sides of the isolator, which is a means to legally have no ground connected (it is a functional part of the active isolation device). So functionally the ground connection is there (read : handshake will work nicely and no ground is stolen from elsewhere).

 

But I see I am at the start of answering my own question about how (merely "that") no physical ground connection eliminates USB noise. It should be the same situation as in your test (after handshake). But I still don't have the answer.

I really don't because as told in the previous post, I can remove the noise without isolation (think merely about guiding away the noise). And so I only have the question because of the outcome of your test.

Side note : we also have the outcome of the Intona (commercial) tests/graphs regarding this, but these are heavily overblown if you ask me (and does not remove the noise completely anyway).

 

Otherwise never mind.

[PeterSt]

Anyone who can render Adele in a beautiful fashion has accomplished something. I myself can do it since about a year now (this is about the NOS1 in its current incarnation) and it is a typical example of in this case an artist one should not give up on. She is too good to sound bad, so if she sounds bad, it is you(r system). And if you managed her, you managed quite some others along the line.

 

Patty Griffin is another good example. But I am not sure I can "do" her already.

[PeterSt]

The problem is that it is quite hard to tell whether a recording is a bad recording. I have too many examples of that seemingly being so, until years later I improved something and suddenly the bad recording became a good recording. Won't count for everything and all of course, but say that in the general scene we both will know (but exclude me from classical) chances are more than 90% that the bad recording is your (our) poor system.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I can accept that a bad recording can sound less bad depending on what you have tweaked.

 

No ... see ? your stance is not right. You keep on thinking that a to you bad sounding recording is a bad recording. And what I try to tell is that this is not so.

 

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

OTOH I am exploring various ways of tinkering with bad recordings with some creative EQ

 

And that is the very last of all to do.

Just a better playback system.

Also try to forget the so called fact that a better playback system makes the badness of a "bad recording" profound. It works the other way around ...

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Peter let me get this straight, are you actually saying that your gear makes *bad* recordings sound good

 

No, I am not saying that; A bad recording is a bad recording.

But you tell me how you can definitely for 100% sure know that a bad recording is a bad recording ? (with the notice that a "recording" as such is seen by us through its pressing/mix/(re)master).

 

1. What we both will think is that a flat sounding recording is a bad recording.

2. Stuffed ears too few highs is a bad recording.

3. Booming bass is a bad recording.

4. Gray sounding highs must be a bad recording.

 

Ad 1.

Rolling Stones - Get Yer Ya-Ya's out. Turns out not to be flat at all. Somehow things can be done so that it expresses as much depth as the other albums.

 

Ad 2.

Deep Purple - Machine Head. In a very strange fashion the highs are buried. But miraculously a year ago they appeared.

 

Ad 3.

Heavy D. and the Boys - All albums. Were not playable for me. Remove the (system !) distortion from the bass (consider that 100% of people suffer from this) and all appears fine.

 

Ad 4.

Beatles - e.g. Get Back. If you'd hear it over here you'd put a lot of money on the perception of listening to a cover.

 

Don't confuse this with poor remasters which never ever will be OK. But also look at this example (of my experience) :

For many many years I have thought and said that Beatle's Love was about the only well-done remaster I ever experienced (the middle parts of the songs are "orginal"). With all my guts and experience I seriously was convinced that those middle parts of the songs remained untouched, thus equal to the originals, btw including above mentioned Get Back.

This stopped when I created the Clairixa USB cable. From then on, I suddenly heard a huge difference and the Love remasters suddenly were a total failure.

I assume you know it. And I also assume that those who know it, will not agree with me.

 

But what really happened was that the originals got better again, this time by means of an USB cable.

 

A few pages back I gave that list of "old hits", like from the 60's. I am confident that you won't believe me when I tell that almost all in that list sound like they were created today (but without today's compression). But might you believe me, then you won't believe me that 20 years ago this was just a pile of crap while 34 years ago Dire Straits sounded "perfect" through the same playback system (I only compare CD's).

 

The experience with Bill Evans is in a kind of other league because if you don't coincidentally have the version I have (and which appears super rare), it is a "poor recording". This, while if you see me screaming in that link about the (1959 !) quality, you wouldn't understand if you have one of those many other versions, including the totally failed Hires. So :

a. chances are fair that you have that other version and think it is a bad recording which is true;

b. chances are more fair that you think it is all crap anyway because too old;

c. the truth is that such an album sounds so good since a stupid playback software improvement, back at the time.

 

Btw, this thread is about the Lush cable, and with that too you hear people say more than once that old recordings got so much better.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If an artist delivered a shocking performance which was recorded would you expect the best HiFi in the world to make it sound great?

 

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

Allow me an analogy: a master music player performs on his instrument, completely acoustic; firstly in an excellent concert hall, with you near him - this is a top class recording scenario. Then he plays again, outside on a busy street, "busking" for passerbys; you are the same distance from him - and there is all the background noise of the street, cars passing, the works ... this is the, 'bad' recording!

 

I was once in Washington - for me about the most ugliest city (sorry) - and at some corner, against a traffic light, there sat a guy with his electric bass + amplification. In the middle of the city noise and for me poor ambiance he played his blues and while 7 years ago I can't get this experience out of my head. It was so genuine and with that so good.

Back home I tried to find this experience in albums but failed. Of course the recordings were a 1000 times better for noise and it included my wine and low light etc. instead of traffic noise in the midst of white buildings without windows, containing museums which I hate.

 

Having said this, I recognize some other way around :

When at some stage you run into a superbly sounding album, adrenaline starts to flow and a next album will sound better (than it really is, I suppose) because of that. This flow is an up-going circle and in the end you are completely drunk because of it (no, I don't smoke).

 

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, Summit said:

Just like most of the pop music are compressed and toned to sound good in mediocre car stereos

 

For fun, try The Beastie Boys - Fight for your Right on your main rig and try to get it right there. I think I have it with the necessary umph and body these days but it really needs some wild changes.

And in the car it is fine to begin with.

 

I'm pretty sure that most people will regard this a boat load of noise, badly recorded and a lot of shouting meanwhile. I think it is a great track for the tunes and even the lyrics, it is not badly recorded at all, but it is not inherently suitable for a "nice system". But mind you, those distortion guitars can really sound beautiful once you got the necessary air(iness) into them. 

Try Rammstein; one degree less rough and with that beautiful all over. Yes, I said "beautiful". 

[PeterSt]

On 6-10-2017 at 5:48 PM, Summit said:

 

Beastie Boys in its glory days made great music (Check Your Head- Ill Communication). They actually played real instrument on stage and not many hip hop artist does. Some of their instrumental jazz/groovy songs (The in sound from way out), sound good in a normal hifi way while others are inherently made to sound like singing true a megaphone . 

 

Thank you for this, Summit.

 

So, this thread being about the Lush USB cable, I sure came up with the Beastie Boys myself, but it wasn't really in the context of the Lush. Still easy to think of the theorie and what the cable would do to the Beastie Boys and so I re-tried the Ill Communication album. And oh, do notice that I don't have more than two tracks from all their albums in my "demo gallery" just because of the ill sound. So as I said earlier, it really takes massive changes to a "hi fi" system before the Beastie Boys sound "nice". But I did not even try any of their albums with the Lush.

Well, yesterday I tried one ...

 

 

This is maybe especially for @acg, as I learned that we often have the same taste. So Anthony, this went all into my demo gallery from this album alone. Now you know what (not) to play. 

 

On 6-10-2017 at 12:42 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I think you experienced awe. I believe music can transport us there

 

So this is what happened to me with this album. I played it in full but had a very hard time to get through the first three tracks. This is also how I often don't get further than one track - the first track, just because I think it is representative for the album and if that fails, then good bye.

But at track 4 it started to happen and as you can see in the list (screenshot) it kept on happening. So FYI, if I think a track is really good, I press a button and it is in a special "gallery" and later it can be played from there. And if more from one album, they appear in the playlist for only that previously made (like yesterday) selection. Well, I can tell you, this will be close to a world record of tracks denoted for the demo gallery. Thus I really must have had fun.

 

Side note : possibly someone can tell what kind of music type this actually is, because IMO it must be categorized in something "special" because of the "upsweeping" up-beat or whatever it is which gives it a unique drive (same as Fight for your Right).

So yes, when this album is played you get into some mood or awe or whatever happiness and it is super special. Now :

 

Because I was thinking of Audiophile Neuroscience's post (and mind you, I really try to listen and learn from everybody), when the album was finished, I thought to test myself for now having so much adrenaline (etc.) that I now could bear those first three tracks.

It-did-not-work.

This was to my surprise as I was fairly sure my mood changed so much that I at least could like those tracks now. But not at all. It was and it remained NOISE.

 

Crucial for the experience on this album was the fact that nothing was visible of the "noise" I referred to in that earlier post. So nothing remained of the noise I have no proper word for in English (but think the hardest metal (music type) to compare it with).

Nothing.

Not that the Beastie Boys suddenly became lush pussies, but it seems that a stupid cable can make the difference between unbearable and normally playable. And that including the punch which these artists require (and yes, they really carry some nice percussion with them - very good audible on this album).

Remember the actual subject from the past days : a poor recording ? NO WAY - the contrary. But if you had asked me a year ago, then ...

What a hobby.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Peter, I have read this post twice and still don't understand it.

 

I tried to bring across these messages :

 

- Beastie Boys seems a ton of noise and therewith bad recording, which is not so at all after quite some tweaking.

- Even for myself it was a surprise that an album I otherwise left alone now became a "favorite".

- What a great album that is indeed (with a Thank You, Summit).

- I tested upon myself whether I could be influenced by music itself so I would like tracks I otherwise don't. I failed that test.

 

And maybe some more rubbish. 

[PeterSt]

15 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

No rubbish !

 

Haha.

But as I said, I really try to listen to people and make something out of it (improve). Now, two weeks ago or so I read something and  thought "aha, so that is where Neuroscience got the nick from" (with still a large guess). But today I forgot what it was.

Would you care to tell about it ?

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Are you referring to awe?

 

Yes, if I see this all (and a bit a week or so ago of the same) I am sure that is how I connected it to your nick name.

Now you only need to tell that you participate in these projects, wrote a few of those articles, or just have an interesting hobby.  Edit : ... way of living.

Great stuff for sure, but only really great if I start reading those articles !

[PeterSt]

OK, I am getting crazy now. @Audiophile Neuroscience, do you think that this sensation can bring you to sleep while still walking around ?

 

Sorry for the OT.

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Sleep walking is a known condition

 

Yes. But maybe it is not so common that this happens during day time.

Envision PeterSt making dinner which takes him 2-3 hours, music always on. He hardly ever experiences this dinner himself, but he eats it without problem. People can see the abnormal state, but that is all. He never got a second from what was on TV, which TV replaces the music when dinner is ready.

This state starts to be active more and more early, and these days he his "already able" to finish the last 30 minutes of the dinner making without him knowing a thing about it. He uses his playback software to see and prove how long the state has been going on because he can clearly see what music played and what track he noticed as the last one paying. Here too people will say "he's gone agaiaiaian". And whatever people do to get him out of there, it is totally impossible. Even ammonia(c) he inhales as if it were fresh air; he stays in the other world until after dinner.

For quite some time now he thinks it is related to the music in some kind of way.

When he is out for vacation it is plainly never happening.

 

Tomorrow I will check again whether the planned meat etc. or whatever goes in dinner last, is still in the fridge or that I managed as usual to know what to do.

 

9 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

you are crazy

 

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, rickca said:

Yes it was 37 euros!  Peter said that was his discounted rate.

 

Haha. Fire up UPS.com and see what comes from it, shipped from the US to the Netherlands. (Volume)Weight is 1lbs.

With  dozens sent at the same time (to different addresses of course), we are charged 39 euros. When only a few (like yesterday we shipped 7) it will be 49 euros.

For e.g. Hong Kong or Indonesia or Australia everything is 10 euros more. For more exotic European or Far East countries again 10 more.

 

3 hours ago, Vangelis said:

 Wondering what it all translates to plan whee I'm billed to my Pay Pal account. 

 

Should be 247 euros for the US. Of course it depends on the (wildly varying) EUR-USD currency rate, how much that will be in USD. Today this should be ~292.

 

And from that 247 euros about 9.50 is deducted by PayPal (that is what they charge for the transaction).

 

Now you know it all. 

OK, almost, because when you live along an Interstate or Highway, UPS thinks this is out of space and charges another whopping 20 euros. Barrows is an example. Alex C. another.

And of course 2.95 euros is added for private addresses which is almost everybody.

[PeterSt]

The good advices are really appreciated. But it is all not so easy as it appears.

 

Shipping locally is (From the top of my head now) 13 euros.

To Belgium (which is around the corner) 20 euros.

 

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

I suspect he gets that a lot, and could save himself a lot of time by just going to option 1 or 2 above.

 

So I'm afraid that can't work really.

 

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

publish higher pricing,  e..g. 239 € with free shipping

 

And that thus not at all. 

 

The only method where these things work is when something like this cable is priced, for example, 750 euros.

The actually thought-of price is still 210 but I just make it that 750 (like almost everybody in audio does). Now I would not care less.

 

But it is completely true : I am not a sales man. Not at all.

 

Thank you guys !

Peter

[PeterSt]

11 hours ago, rando said:

I forget which platform you use for the online store, but in this day and age adding a shipping calculator based on weight and destination is probably a built in feature you just need to activate.

 

Rando, how is that related ?

(and FYI that is in there, so I don't understand the remark anyway)