USB audio cracked... finally!

[manisandher]

9 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

I am incredibly dubious in regards to "Lush" USB cable because how it tweaks the sender/receiver should be implementation specific. One size fits all makes zero sense.

 

[Highlight mine.]

 

Here's the hard data so far: known DACs that various users around the world are using with the Lush USB audio cable, with positive sonic benefits:

 

- Phasure NOS1 G3

- Holo Audio Spring

- Aries Cerat Kassandra

- Pacific Microsonics Model Two (with Playback Designs USB-XIII USB-AES converter)

- Schiit Yggdrasil (pre Gen 5 board)

- exaSound e32

- iFi nano iDSD

- iFi micro iDSD

- dCS Debussy

- Benchmark DAC2-D

- Chord DAVE

- Pink Faun DAC 2.32 (with Wavelength Wavelink USB --> BNC converter)

- NAD M12

- Lampizator B7

- Ayre Codex

- Halide DAC HD

 

And Roch has mentioned that the Lush is beneficial on all 7 of his DACs (not sure exactly which models they are though).

 

The data suggests that the sonic benefits of the Lush are pretty universal across different DACs. And listening impressions are surprisingly consistent, with themes like 'more analogue' and 'more musical' coming up again and again.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

2 hours ago, bibo01 said:

@PeterSt, does your cable have some similarity with AntiCable? i am thinking of the dielectric and the "air" you talked about...

 

I use Anticables throughout my office system (ICs and speaker) - I prefer them to the mega-bucks cables I have sitting gathering dust in my basement. To my ears, most other cables sound 'smeared' in comparison.

 

I think the Phasure 'Blaxius' ICs in my main system are better still. But they require hardware modifications to the DAC and amps that I can't be bothered with in my office system.

 

Mani.

[Speed Racer]

34 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

[Highlight mine.]

 

Here's the hard data so far: known DACs that various users around the world are using with the Lush USB audio cable, with positive sonic benefits:

 

- Phasure NOS1 G3

- Holo Audio Spring

- Aries Cerat Kassandra

- Pacific Microsonics Model Two (with Playback Designs USB-XIII USB-AES converter)

- Schiit Yggdrasil (pre Gen 5 board)

- exaSound e32

- iFi nano iDSD

- iFi micro iDSD

- dCS Debussy

- Benchmark DAC2-D

- Chord DAVE

- Pink Faun DAC 2.32 (with Wavelength Wavelink USB --> BNC converter)

- NAD M12

- Lampizator B7

- Ayre Codex

- Halide DAC HD

 

And Roch has mentioned that the Lush is beneficial on all 7 of his DACs (not sure exactly which models they are though).

 

The data suggests that the sonic benefits of the Lush are pretty universal across different DACs. And listening impressions are surprisingly consistent, with themes like 'more analogue' and 'more musical' coming up again and again.

 

Mani.

 

As far as I can tell that is a list of products owned by people that think any cable Peter will sell them is the best thing they have ever heard.....

[Jud]

10 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

I am incredibly dubious in regards to "Lush" USB cable because how it tweaks the sender/receiver should be implementation specific. One size fits all makes zero sense.

 

I don’t understand why an item in the system can’t improve things overall.  Let’s say a DAC has audibly lower distortion arising from jitter.  What would that make worse?

[manisandher]

2 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

As far as I can tell that is a list of products owned by people that think any cable Peter will sell them is the best thing they have ever heard.....

 

You obviously can't tell much then - for many of these people, it's their first ever purchase of any Phasure gear. In any event, it's clear you're not up for trying the Lush, for whatever reason. No problem.

 

Interestingly, the Yggy owner seems very happy with the improvement the Lush has brought to the Yggy:

 

"What is really remarkable about the sound of the Lush is that it is both smoother sounding and, at the same time, everything, instruments and voices, are more solid sounding. Everything has more "presence", thus everything sounds more natural."

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

 

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

 

As far as I can tell that is a list of products owned by people that think any cable Peter will sell them is the best thing they have ever heard.....

 

Quite humiliating.

 

[Speed Racer]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

I don’t understand why an item in the system can’t improve things overall.  Let’s say a DAC has audibly lower distortion arising from jitter.  What would that make worse?

 

It can. But in this case, it's a cable made out of spec to cause certain things to happen in the transceiver of the source computer. At least that is what I think Peter said the last time he said something concrete about where the "magic" happens. Since there are a bunch of different USB transceiver chip sets and variations within implementations using each chip set, I find it hard to believe that a single "Lush" cable spec can affect all the transceivers in exactly the same way so the "magic" happens.

 

I don't doubt that Peter can build a cable that will do something cool with a particular implementation....I just don't think it can happen in all implementations without tuning. It doesn't make engineering sense. Hell, I remember working on Ethernet cards at Apple and changing anything in the design (trace paths, resistor manufacturers, chip manufacturers, etc.) could wreak havoc on signal behavior. Marginal, but in spec cables, could cause failures as well. We once had to make a card an inch longer to make room for different layout so we could get marginal cables to work consitently.

 

And I am supposed to believe that one specially massaged USB cable will affect all USB implementations exactly the same way? No sir..... 

[semente]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

This is an interesting example, because it demonstrates some of the principles. The image is static, and it's low resolution - the mind has very limited "data" to work with, and will just go with the blue-green look of that "grab". If one was there, in the situation with the girl on the bike live, there would be immensely more information to tap into - it may be that there was a very intense coloured spotlight in operation - it's easy these days to blanket large areas with very powerful colour ... and if such a measurable colour balance shift was constantly happening, yes, the mind would adjust to quite a degree, after some period of time.

 

What you are saying is that one would get used to the tremendous colour shifts and lack of contrasts and fuzzyness of one's system.

I would add that such can only happen if you don't listen to other (better) systems and/or live music.

 

So, no you would not adjust.

 

But I agree that if people only listen to reproduced sound then they will adjust more easily (and may even prefer) such shortcomings and distortions, which is why you hear so many woos and ahhs from systems that don't really sound like live unamplified music.

AS I've said previously, it's all about expectations...

[semente]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Maybe an unexpected answer : no. This is because I can't see whether it is snow I see or just too much light. So my mind stalls on this.

This is exactly how I am not able to witness amplified live music any more (this was discussed in another thread). But this is also how I can't listen to any 0.00001% THD ESS because all what should be square is too much sine and violins are closer to flutes. So mind you, this works as long as you did not hear the real violins through your system; it stops ones and for all after you heard the violins. After that you can't go back.

 

The even better example :

Most systems that I know are these days able to show the cymbal quite alright and sufficiently loud, but can not show the attack well (the cymbal of course has first to be hot before it can make its sound). This is something we can 100% live with, no matter in a live situation we will naturally hear how different it is in reality. We don't even think about it. The brain thinks "so be it". However, the minute your system can show the attack, there is no way you will ever be able to listen to speakers (also not your friend's) without that attack.

 

The fun of this hobby is and remains that you thus don't know about all of these things, unless you are spoiled.

I think this is a crucial part of the bugs story, because when suddenly no attacks are there on the cymbal, there has to be a bug somewhere ...

 

You are joking, right?

The colours are madly shifted, there's extreme contrast but no contrast, clipped whites, clipped blacks, fuzzyness.Unless your display is very innacurate and all images look dreadful anyway, so much so that you can't distinguish differences between recorded image quality...

 

About a decade ago I listened to a system that changed my perception of what is possible in domestic reproduction, a system that when playing good recordings was able to portray both orchestral music and choir and jazz with an unsettling realism; and yes, it made listening to "normal" systems a bit difficult.

 

Besides I also agree that one does adjust to the limitations of our system to a point but what you appear to be saying is that a jagged frequency response doesn't matter (or that I would adjust to it) because I am not getting transient response right anyway.

What about limited low-level resolution, would this matter?

[semente]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

You obviously can't tell much then - for many of these people, it's their first ever purchase of any Phasure gear. In any event, it's clear you're not up for trying the Lush, for whatever reason. No problem.

 

Interestingly, the Yggy owner seems very happy with the improvement the Lush has brought to the Yggy:

 

"What is really remarkable about the sound of the Lush is that it is both smoother sounding and, at the same time, everything, instruments and voices, are more solid sounding. Everything has more "presence", thus everything sounds more natural."

 

Mani.

 

Perhaps I am overly sceptic but I find no relevant information in that or any of the other reports.

Not, mind you, because those tests were not blind or DB-ABX or level-matched but because I have no idea whatsoever of how those listeners evaluate sound, what are their expectations and their taste, if they're affected by bias, how much listening experience they have.

 

And unfortunately I don't trust (most) professional reviews either because many suffer from the aforementioned shortcomings plus the added bonus of a need to push-sell the product...

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

but what you appear to be saying is that a jagged frequency response doesn't matter (or that I would adjust to it) because I am not getting transient response right anyway.

 

Nah, that is not what I intended to say. This is :

 

When things are too much wrong in order to cope with, all becomes a "reject". And so it just seriously happened to me with that photo that I was only looking at whether it was snow or not, I was even trying to find out whether the girl was wearing gloves or that just her sleeves were up and ...

And then I even forget what it is about.

 

I am not teasing - only honest telling what happened to me in this case.

[semente]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Nah, that is not what I intended to say. This is :

 

When things are too much wrong in order to cope with, all becomes a "reject". And so it just seriously happened to me with that photo that I was only looking at whether it was snow or not, I was even trying to find out whether the girl was wearing gloves or that just her sleeves were up and ...

And then I even forget what it is about.

 

I am not teasing - only honest telling what happened to me in this case.

 

Now it makes sense.

So would you rather have a less extreme example?

[PeterSt]

48 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

And I am supposed to believe that one specially massaged USB cable will affect all USB implementations exactly the same way? No sir..... 

 

OK, you are allowed to believe what you want of course. So you don't dig the non-existent commercial story (it just is not there), you also don't dig my outlay (your right) and you also don't dig the resulting "reports". This latter I am not sure yet whether this is OK because it implies one huge conspiracy.

I know, it is easy for you to let Mani collaborate with me (which never happened anywhere) but now you extend the group to random people and if not that, then you blame me for brainwashing. OK, all not your words, but what I am heading for is this :

 

Let's assume that the latter is not in order at all (and it would be too ridiculous so it isn't in order).;

What would you dedicate people's findings to ?

So let's please assume now that my outlay does not exist and was never heard. However, some cable floats around and it is named "Lush". Is it the name doing it ? (can well be !) is it the color ? (can very well be again)

 

Compare with Clairixa. 100s of them out there, but now "my customers" mainly. So they can all be prosecuted for liking me. But now these same people have both cables. Now what ?

Clairixa is off-white for color.

 

Before you think I am kidding you, I am really not. So please deal with this seriously too (and envision that even I could fall in the pitfall of color and glitter). 

 

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, semente said:

So would you rather have a less extreme example?

 

Why not. But I wonder whether I am representative when we seem to disagree in the first place.

 

To stay on topic (but to kind of respond to you in context) : people know (or were there) that I can seriously try things because I am eager to let it work. For example, someone can have worked a day on preparing a new USB (trial) cable. Then I put it in, and in 10 seconds it is already out. It is a total waste of time to listen to something of which I can "see" it is not right. I am not into subjectiveness of being able to listen to the good parts of it. The bad parts disturb too much, even if it is the most slightest. Something is wrong and I want to go elsewhere.

 

You seem to talk about "the brain is able to correct". Oh is that so. Well, it is tiring as h*ll and one should not even attempt or get used to.

I know, hanging upside down watching television, will get used to too. But somehow I think it is tiring (I never really tried ).

[Jud]

52 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

It can. But in this case, it's a cable made out of spec to cause certain things to happen in the transceiver of the source computer.

 

Right.  What if the "certain things" involve less noise and jitter?  (There was a fair amount of speculation here as to what that might look like, restricted to things that could be affected by cable construction.  At the end of it, @marce said he didn't have enough information to form an idea of what was supposed to be happening, so we certainly can't take plausibility as having been demonstrated.  On the other hand, I don't think we have enough information to say plausibility on an engineering level has been conclusively disproved.)

 

What we're working with is a metaphor/brand name - "Lush" - made up by someone whose native language isn't English, and a few broad hints.  So a couple of things are true: (1) Your earlier remark about the power of suggestion is fair.  Since just the name is sufficient to suggest to people what they ought to be hearing, it's really impossible to say power of suggestion can play no part.  (2) Since we don't know in any detail at all how this is supposed to work on an engineering level, intuition based on a metaphor is as unreliable a basis for skepticism as it is for belief.

[manisandher]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

So a couple of things are true: (1) Your earlier remark about the power of suggestion is fair.  Since just the name is sufficient to suggest to people what they ought to be hearing, it's really impossible to say power of suggestion can play no part...

 

I agree with everything you said Jud. Just a comment on this though. The name 'Lush' actually put me off from trying it immediately. When it was released, I was using my brand new pair of 300B SET monos, and an even 'lusher' sound was the last thing I felt I needed.

 

I'm not denying that the power of suggestion is a valid concern, but I really don't think it's a massive factor for me nowadays. If it were, I don't think all the 'expensive' gear I've bought over the years would be sitting stored away in boxes. The latest example are my new $13k SET monos - they look gorgeous, have a massive pride-of-ownership factor, and yet they're stored in their boxes because I prefer the sound of my old, modest-looking bridged-parallel gainclone monos.

 

Looking at the list of DACs that people are using with the Lush, I suspect, like me, many of them have been around the block quite a few times and can identify 'good sound' quite easily nowadays.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

I know @manisandher does not need any support. But this is from June 24 and testifies what Mani just said in the previous post (it is after the first WOWs appeared on the forum and actually the maybe not so 100% trusting of Mani  about other's opinions, so aren't we all actually the same) :

 

Peter, are your thoughts on the sound of the Lush dependent on it being connected to a Phisolator (or 3!), or is it still effective if connected directly to the NOS1's USB input C? If you are using a Phisolator, are you using the 'standard' short USB link between USB B and C on the NOS1? Have you tried a short Lush between B and C? I'm in a position where I simply don't need a 'lusher' sound than I'm already getting (assuming I understood your initial description).   This was my response to that :   Hi Mani, In your case it is the best not to try it at all. What one doesn't know, can't harm. Really ?? Hahahaha Now test yourself. But really, just don't get it. More really, just don't get it. Or get it just in case but don't try it. Bzzzz :-) After this I visited Mani because I was almost automatically driving his pathway so I sort of stopped and rang his bell, and don't you think that I had one in my trunk. At his home I even explicitly told Mani that he should NOT get any Lush, because his system already quite showed a sufficiently lush sound. This is all not lied.   Let me finish this anecdotal thingy that I myself feel about 100% the same as SpeedRacer because I don't trust anything another one (in audio) tells.  So I concur.

[semente]

56 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Why not. But I wonder whether I am representative when we seem to disagree in the first place.

 

To stay on topic (but to kind of respond to you in context) : people know (or were there) that I can seriously try things because I am eager to let it work. For example, someone can have worked a day on preparing a new USB (trial) cable. Then I put it in, and in 10 seconds it is already out. It is a total waste of time to listen to something of which I can "see" it is not right. I am not into subjectiveness of being able to listen to the good parts of it. The bad parts disturb too much, even if it is the most slightest. Something is wrong and I want to go elsewhere.

 

You seem to talk about "the brain is able to correct". Oh is that so. Well, it is tiring as h*ll and one should not even attempt or get used to.

I know, hanging upside down watching television, will get used to too. But somehow I think it is tiring (I never really tried ).

 

I think we do agree.

 

I never said that "the brain is able to correct" (that was fas42), but we do get used to it somewhat.

I am not talking in the context of our own systems but I can enjoy listening in the car or at a friends with a micro stereo.

For our own system we have different expectations and are far more demanding (i.e. I had a pair of 802S3s that sounded wrong from day one and I never managed to endure it; they were replaced by much better PSB T2s whose shortcomings, though obvious, were quite bearable).

 

I think you will have to read my exchange with fas42 to see where I am coming from.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Since we don't know in any detail at all how this is supposed to work on an engineering level, intuition based on a metaphor is as unreliable a basis for skepticism as it is for belief.

 

I would suggest that the lack of a reliable basis of evidence for belief is enough for skepticism or disbelieve. We need to put the burden of proof where it belongs.

[manisandher]

'Starlite' all over again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite) 

 

Mani.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I would suggest that the lack of a reliable basis of evidence for belief is enough for skepticism or disbelieve. We need to put the burden of proof where it belongs.

 

Yes, it wasn't a remark about burden of proof.  The commenter I replied to had said that his understanding of the way Peter spoke about the cable didn't square with an ability to improve sound for various different DACs.  I was simply commenting that intuition based on metaphors and a couple of hints would not be a reliable *basis* for skepticism or belief.

 

I have no problem at all with initial skepticism about whether something like a cable works until/unless it is proved to do so.  I figure the reliable basis for evaluating this would be some engineering specifics, which we don't have here.

[barrows]

6 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

It can. But in this case, it's a cable made out of spec to cause certain things to happen in the transceiver of the source computer. At least that is what I think Peter said the last time he said something concrete about where the "magic" happens. Since there are a bunch of different USB transceiver chip sets and variations within implementations using each chip set, I find it hard to believe that a single "Lush" cable spec can affect all the transceivers in exactly the same way so the "magic" happens.

 

I don't doubt that Peter can build a cable that will do something cool with a particular implementation....I just don't think it can happen in all implementations without tuning. It doesn't make engineering sense. Hell, I remember working on Ethernet cards at Apple and changing anything in the design (trace paths, resistor manufacturers, chip manufacturers, etc.) could wreak havoc on signal behavior. Marginal, but in spec cables, could cause failures as well. We once had to make a card an inch longer to make room for different layout so we could get marginal cables to work consitently.

 

And I am supposed to believe that one specially massaged USB cable will affect all USB implementations exactly the same way? No sir..... 

On the one hand, I agree with you: the transmitter-cable-receiver is a system, and changing any one element will effect the outcome of the transmission properties, so how could a single cable be idealized for every possible USB implementation?  But, it appears that Peter's design approach is different enough from most USB cables, that it will be (nearly) universally "good" sounding, or at least "different" sounding.

It is also true that different USB receiver circuits in DACs are not usually all that different, generally there is one of two parts, an XMOS or Atmel processor with an onboard receiver.  What does Phase use in their DAC?  If it is Amanero based then it is the Atmel.  Then, maybe the interfaces are different in the trace length and routing to the chip, and the use, or not, of damping resistors on the trace to the chip.

[Albrecht]

7 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I would suggest that the lack of a reliable basis of evidence for belief is enough for skepticism or disbelieve. We need to put the burden of proof where it belongs.

deleted

[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

[Albrecht]

12 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

As far as I can tell that is a list of products owned by people that think any cable Peter will sell them is the best thing they have ever heard.....

There's a lot of mid-end on that list....Stuff that could likely be mated with associated gear that a listener may not not be able to discern a difference.