USB audio cracked... finally!

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

BTW, while I didn't have Peter's DAC, I did have the card he used, the very nice Juli@.  Eventually sold it, because it didn't work with FreeBSD, which I was running a lot at the time.

 

Haha. Anyone wants one ? I still have 20-25 all new in box.

For 20 euros + shipping (and VAT for those liable to VAT).

Also does 24/192 recording (am I right, I think so ...).

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, Boleary3 said:

To my ears, in my system, in my house the Lush imparts a smooth, rounded and detailed sonic signature

 

Hey Brian !

 

18 minutes ago, Boleary3 said:

but I have to turn up the volume to get the  bloom I so love with the Clairixa.

 

I sure can imagine something like this. Or let me put it differently : I "do" the same (but am allowed to ).

What I dare "claim" it that it works the other way around (and please feel free to not agree at all, but try to see whether I could be right) :

 

The smooth rounded and detailed sonic signature just allow for for those few dBs more which are "necessary" to pressurize the room. So bass expresses more punch and especially more pressure from the bottom upwards.

 

I'd also agree with the "airy" you mention but in my view this has downsides. Say that I leave it to you to think them over and what you could prefer on the long term.

Also do not hesitate to switch back and forth (such an advice is even in a preliminary text I wrote about the Lush). This is similar to my advice (on the Phasure forum) to never sell your Clairixa's. This is all for a good reason.

 

Thank you for your honest help here !

Regards to y'all out there,

Peter

 

PS: I hope you both can finally give some peace to the Ygg thing. What you quoted was no secret to me as everybody is honest and open in the first place. Well, that is what I hope for and what I see (from your current post as well). So peace, OK ?

 

 

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

The question is always what solutions are available at what price.

 

@Jud, I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't care a hoot. Even if the difference in SQ would be minimal, I'd easily shell out a 1000 more. This is personal of course, but the thing is : as a supplier (manufacturer) one should care because it is a commercial thing. But the real audio idiots (as manufacturer) would not care about this.

Fact is (I think) : this can't be any commercial model. It wouldn't survive for long. One could stretch things a bit like Tidal+Spring or MQA and whatever the investor's name is, but I think it is quite easy to say that if it would be about a real deal, it is doomed to go broke because too costly.

 

In the end you are 100% correct of course. However :

 

The attic developments are real and don't I recall some picture in an attic (or was it a garage) from someone named Bill Gates. I forgot who he was, but ...

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

I can see where it might be attics in the Netherlands, but in the U.S. it’s garages.

 

You really made my day here !

 

But also :

http://www.businesspundit.com/11-famous-garage-startups-that-rule-the-world/

 

 

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

If that happened, as I’m paying to build one house while also paying the mortgage on the one I currently own, my wife would soon make me an ex-audiophile!

 

Education Jud, it is all about education.

 

Fact of life would be that you wouldn't move house. I don't know whether that's a problem.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

to hear the BBC Proms via the Firefox browser

 

George, is that about the FLAC thing I read about ?

[PeterSt]

Just now, rando said:

Also, 7 months?

 

Ehm, what are you talking about now ? I don't recognize 7 months anywhere ?

I guess I just don't understand the hint or language ...

[PeterSt]

Just now, rando said:

I spent the intervening time scolding myself for not having queued this quote to start with.

 

Arrgghh, that one. Sorry, I just did not get it.

Well, because it is all new, it is supposed to work. So no guarantee to begin with but usually when I set my mind to something, it should be feasible to begin with and next work out as intended.

What's also in order is some lag for production. So the (throughput) time set for it is for the proof of concept, though including a working prototype. This also must sound better (read : "be" better). So Christmas should be nice but it could be too soon. It would be exciting though.

 

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, rando said:

Is the Lush expected to be plugged into a USB 3 port?  From an end user standpoint this could be an important question to ask the manufacturer. 

 

Mwah ... not easy to answer. I tend to say yes because "we" all do, and outside of any cable, USB3 just sounds better. Otoh, this is in the more "protected" environment of XXHighEnd (and for most with the Phasure NOS1a DAC).

Notice that XXHighEnd is AO^2 although this is hardly advertised. It just is. So this takes into account about all what there is, and since the settings influence the DAC's sound easily, the interface is USB, and the OSes wildly differ for SQ, it should be the USB port where the differences start.

This is hard to prove and all we have really is the general acceptance that USB3 sounds better. Btw, this was only maybe 2 monts ago re-tested among a few (I could listen to USB2 for a few minutes only before I was too bored to continue with it).

 

The short answer : Yes, I think USB3 will be the better one, and besides the Lush was developed using that (and I personally still do).

 

Good for an answer ?

Peter

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, rando said:

Seeing as there was a lull in relevant content.

 

Yes, thank you. 

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, rickca said:

What does AO^2 mean?

 

AO to the power of 2.

 

So yes, XXHighEnd strips down the OS to the very maximum, with the special features of :

- boot into it (Minimized OS), which also allows boot back into Normal OS;

- It being explicitly optimized for each OS around. This includes the W10 OSes Build 10074, 10565 (both obsolete but still run), 10240, 10586.0 and 14393.0.

 

Maybe you saw ACG (Anthony) write about 30W or so of power consumption for his 40 core hypertheaded Xeon processor and linear PSU based PC (all built into  the PC itself which is less than 3" of height). So think about this and how it can be possible.

 

XXHighEnd applies these jokes for 10 years now, but us gang stay a bit quiet ... 

 

[PeterSt]

If I'm still allowed (and otherwise please delete) ... I could also say that we provide a hdd (or ssd) that contains 5 OSes pre-installed, all capable of that optimization via XXHighEnd (which is also pre-installed) and which allows the install of a new OS by means of download which only comprises of a copy-file and you're up and running. Of course this will only be about a new OS which sounds better than the previous (determined by my ears).

 

I didn't tell that each OS is meant to run headless (the remote allowing to boot into each of them), and besides that, boots from RAM with no single disk/ssd present anywhere. But you may recall that Mani spent a little thread about this. It is about the combination of all though.

10 years of explicit development is quite a bit. And if we don't voice, well, we just don't, 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, BigAlMc said:

Played a few tracks I know really well and swapped the Lush to Curious and vice versa around half way in each track.

 

Hi Alan - Thank you for your extensive report.

 

I have something else you might find interesting :

At least to myself it is very obvious which USB cable is in the chain. I mean, right into the first seconds. However, this brings a difference which is (again for me) hard to qualify. The real difference is only found when playing for a longer time and especially by looking at the means of what you play. So for me this shifted the repertoire completely. But that let aside :

It is about the wondering you will do after a longer listen in a row. Like playing a full album, being into a next, and you start to wonder what actually happend that you perceive what you perceive. It is almost an unary feeling because there is nothing to really judge (about). There is no data.

So what plays a role are the indirect findings (or the indirect data);

 

I already told on the Phasure forum that somehow this suddenly is fine for background music (no matter it is played loud). Yesterday again a testimonial of that happened : I played music for something like 6 hours in a row, with a house full of visitors, and it did not happen a single time that I myself (!) though to put up different music because people would not like what's playing. And without the Lush I always have troubles with that). So something has become "real" or whatever it is what happens.

 

Anyway my long story short : instead of A-B you can try to play without comparing, and see what all passes your mind, especially after a few hours of playing. Whatever that will appear to be, *that* will be the real difference.

Sorry to be vague, but this is audio ... 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

It is almost an unary feeling because there is nothing to really judge (about).

 

I think wanted to say "eerie feeling" there.

[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

[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

 

 

 

 

 

[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).

[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.

 

[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.

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Make sense?

 

Perfectly ...

[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.

[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.

 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

What prompted my question is that @lmitche reported that he got the best results doing precisely that, and I started thinking about why.

 

Aha ! I didn't catch that one. I will reread his post about it.

 

Anyway, assumed that lmitche himself is right, we can see that audio is not really voodoo and that some things can be reasoned out.

(and as a matter of fact I like to reason out everything and all in advance - sometimes in aftermath as long as there's consistency in happening + story)