USB audio cracked... finally!

[Ralf11]

32 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

C'mon. DBT with one subject (the other human is doing the swapping)? Really?

 

It could easily cost $10K to do a real study ... ever done a budget for a funded human study? Maybe this could be crowdfunded to be objective. You are a scientist, so let's see a protocol? Or... yeah too much work, that's my point

 

I am familiar with human and animal study compliance and had to work under those rules when I was younger.  This is not going to be funded by NSF or NIH, so ...

 

 

I've posted a methodology twice now...  certainly 1 person - the buyer;  I check what I buy during the return period

 

but it would be easy to include 20 people if they want to do a test and pool the results

 

 

[jabbr]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I've posted a methodology twice now...  certainly 1 person - the buyer;  I check what I buy during the return period

 

but it would be easy to include 20 people if they want to do a test and pool the results

Can you quote where you posted?

 

but point being that you weren't trying to be scientifically rigorous? Would you be willing to write up results and submit to a journal? that would be science as opposed to the casual testing we do almost daily... y'know the kind with statistics, measures of validity, pre-test probabilities post test etc, discussion of stats methods e.g. ? Bayesian etc... that's all a bit of work ... and then your friendly Editors would think you've been hitting the sauce too hard ...

[Ralf11]

yes, but not hard to do a simple t-test

 

Are you a scientist, jabbr?  scientifically rigorous is a fairly wide landscape...

 

I am not personally going to submit audio test gear results to a journal - not my thang.

 

sample size of 20 is adequate to show a large effect - in fact, I've seen people do 5 in each ANOVA cell 

 

as one person noted, this isn't testing for thalidomide; just a consumer product for which we'd like to avoid consumer fraud but need not be concerned with death rates, contra-indications, or serious side effects

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

yes, but not hard to do a simple t-test

 

Are you a scientist, jabbr?  scientifically rigorous is a fairly wide landscape...

Researchgate tells me my papers have 3000 citations -- 15 publications -- I've done science. Last year I helped a few members of our Symphony get funding to do a randomized controlled study that involved music perception and human effects. My research assistant wrote the protocol under my direction. I volunteered my time. I really don't like to argue by authority (and no need to get into more details) but I've got a great idea of how much work it really is, and prefer to drink bourbon on off hours.

[Ralf11]

ok, flipping 2 things from Popperisitic science and some other things had me wondering

 

for the record, I'm a biologist  (and not  chemist in drag type either)

[kennyb123]

I just swapped the USPCB back in for the Lush.  The difference was jarring.  I didn't expect the difference to be so immediately apparent - and in a sense, profound.  A different presentation - in an exaggerated sense it was big, full and meaty vs, clear, tight and precise.  

 

So which do I prefer?  I want both.  LOL

 

It's still to early to state a definitive preference, but at this early juncture the USPCB may achieve the balance that aligns a bit better with my listening preferences.  We shall see if that remains the case after more listening and further burn in of the Lush.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I don't even remember where here I posted it.  Think I have done so twice.  No one is hearing tribo-electric effect as audio gear is normally used.

 

 

 

That's what you think ... I worry about tribolectric, because I wouldn't get the SQ I'm after if I didn't. The subtle effects are where the real action is - one knows this, because the sound degrades back to conventional stereo playback when insufficient care has been taken to address these areas.

 

This continual hammering away with wanting poor quality testing to "prove" something, decade after decade after decade, will result in zero movement forward at any stage - until there are some changes of attitude ...

[jabbr]

39 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

ok, flipping 2 things from Popperisitic science and some other things had me wondering

 

for the record, I'm a biologist  (and not  chemist in drag type either)

 

What you might consider "flipped" may have been taken out of context -- and also understand that I'm pretty much always doing something else, and so make errors ... but let me explain:

 

There seems to be this idea that if someone does a single measurement (or set) using a single technique, and fails to show a difference, let's use ASR with the Regen as an example, that this is scientific evidence that the DUT isn't doing anything. Now in this case the so-called investigators seems to have a bias against finding a difference. The manuf has shown measurements (eye pattern) showing an effect. Now ASR has published another set of measurements that demonstrate exactly what I described months and months ago, that the DUT should reduce the linewidth (or tighten up the peak) but this isn't really discussed. I would just say that there isn't real science being done.

 

Certainly I agree that the manuf ought provide data to support claims, and if it were my product, I would insist on such data. I wouldn't be able to produce a product at such affordable prices -- I guess that's why I do consulting  ... but the point is that folks should realize that most manuf are working really hard and probably not earning $1000/hr ... so y'now if we are going to ask for more, expect higher prices...

 

So yeah, Popper, that's old hat and sort of debunked (but you know at a crazy level that is perhaps not even understandable), but not really relevent here (unless we are doing real science). I think Kuhn might be more apropos, and personally, I always look at who are among the first to either create an idea or popularize an idea -- @PeterSt and @Miska, very different but both with the computer based upsampling idea and both with fantastic actual implementations ... and this idea is so so important, critical, essential, for computer audio, that I have and enjoy a Phasure NOS1a, and have a Lush and am upgrading to the G3 -- it all sounds great and I won't bore everyone with my own subjective impressions, but also realize that I've built @Miska's DSC1 DAC (which is terrific) but have also designed a balanced discrete jFet version so if anything I should be personally biased against PCM and the NOS1a -- it does irritate me endlessly that there should be a dependence on OS optimization for sound -- I consider that a bug, not a feature -- and hope to eliminate this dependence.

 

In any case there is really alot to be learned here and just hope that folks can keep an open mind -- if you don't have an open mind, then you aren't a good scientist (whatever Popper may have written about that, if at all, but regardless)

 

Edit: uh oh ... that last part sounds like I'm channeling Peter ... its the bourbon talking  

 

[Ciukas]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I demand it with my money. It's in everyone's financial interest to do the same. If you want to believe the marketing hype it's your prerogative,  but don't be surprised if you are paying for some oil from a certain slithering reptile.

 

 

 

Agreed it's in everyone's interest, no one ever said no to more audio measurement tests. But quick thought experiment if you'll permit me... when was the last time you demanded with your money to call out any piece of clothing you consider important to you. Did the designer or brand ever share with conclusive proof if say, a lapel was handstitched in Italy or Moldova? Not into clothing? Ok, how about watches? How do you know for sure a certain high end Swiss watch was assembled inhouse with at least 80% assembly parts coming from within Europe (not to say that China quality isnt up to par, that's very quickly changing)? Not into watches? Ok, how about chocolate? Has a boutique chocolatier ever shown ever the cocoa did not come at the expense of child slavery? Unless there was a journalistic expose, I doubt most industries are ever so willingly transparent. Again, that's not to say consumers shouldn't demand the highest ethical standards from brands we care about, or to try to keep companies honest. 

 

Without calling out anyone out, there was recently a new iem release from a reputable headphone manufacturer. Manufacturer won't release the frequency response curve of its new product because the public hasnt been educated enough yet to properly interpret the results of their measurements. Needless to say, their new offering sounds fantastic and that much is obvious even without measurements. Given or not. But yeah, headphones and usb cables... completely different... The thing is, the Lush is obviously a highly experimental and unconventional USB cable design. Anyone buying into it knows that and everyone else reading into such impressions also know it.

 

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sure, I'm not asking you to do it. When I measure a piece of equipment I own, I share the results with others. I'm curious to see how it performs. I'm curious to see if there are some things I need to improve on. I'm curious if it's working as expected. I'm sure there are others that would want to see this, as well.

 

Yes, most of are for sure and any further extensive tests are always appreciated if done in good faith. But just a kind reminder that this is a USB cable thread. Always contentious. Any purchases and impressions from end users are by nature then highly subjective though not open to discredit and ridicule. Those of us who purchased the Lush cable did so fully conscious of the contentious nature of subject but still like to share impressions for fun without feeling the need to go full on science commando in a USB cable thread!... 

 

[Superdad]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

advertising distorts the free market

 

What if a company was successful without ever taking out a single advertisement?  A couple million dollars in sales over a few years without a single ad buy?  Is that enough of a pure "free market" for you?

[Ralf11]

6 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

What if a company was successful without ever taking out a single advertisement?  A couple million dollars in sales over a few years without a single ad buy?  Is that enough of a pure "free market" for you?

 

don't take it the wrong way or applying to you, but today a co. - let's say a co. making cables filled with a toxic liquid metal - could get lots of sales from users posting on the internet (either by conf. bias or by shilling) without ever taking out a single advertisement

 

------------

 

jabbr - I largely agree

[jabbr]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

don't take it the wrong way or applying to you, but today a co. - let's say a co. making cables filled with a toxic liquid metal - could get lots of sales from users posting on the internet (either by conf. bias or by shilling) without ever taking out a single advertisement

 

Yeah so I draw a very very  sharp distinction on that one where the technical claims are entirely pseudoscientific and unsupported by any theory let alone measurement. Like I don't even care what the results of a DBT would be...

[manisandher]

4 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

A different presentation - in an exaggerated sense it was big, full and meaty vs, clear, tight and precise.

 

Interesting. "Big, full and meaty" being the Lush and "clear, tight and precise" being the USPCB?

 

Although I've never heard one, from people's descriptions of it the USPCB sounds very similar to the Clarixa USB cable. If I'm using my SET amps, I prefer the Clarixa, but using my low-distortion/high-bandwidth gainclones I prefer the Lush. I would have thought the sound of the Lush would be a better match with your Spectral amps...

 

4 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

The difference was jarring.

 

I can well imagine.

 

Mani.

[mansr]

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

What if a company was successful without ever taking out a single advertisement?  A couple million dollars in sales over a few years without a single ad buy?  Is that enough of a pure "free market" for you?

Advertising comes in many guises, including this post of yours.

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, Ciukas said:

Agreed it's in everyone's interest, no one ever said no to more audio measurement tests.

 

I guess you've not read some of the feedback I got on this and on other threads, including from some manufacturers (not PeterSt!) It wasn't pretty.

 

7 hours ago, Ciukas said:

when was the last time you demanded with your money to call out any piece of clothing you consider important to you.

Ok, how about watches?

Ok, how about chocolate?

 

No, not into any of these. But I am into astronomy and astrophotography, and I'm just as passionate about equipment, measurement, and objective data there as I am in audio.  More so, because there I've invented and published tools to enable objective evaluation and measurements without a major investment in lab equipment. I also would never purchase a telescope or a CCD camera that didn't have published measurements and specs.

 

7 hours ago, Ciukas said:

Any purchases and impressions from end users are by nature then highly subjective though not open to discredit and ridicule. Those of us who purchased the Lush cable did so fully conscious of the contentious nature of subject but still like to share impressions for fun without feeling the need to go full on science commando in a USB cable thread!... 

 

As you might have seen in my posts here, I have no beef with those buying. I do want to see more accountability and transparency from manufacturers about products they sell. PeterSt was kind enough to engage me and others in a question/answer session, and although he was a bit dodgy, he did try to explain what he thinks Lush cable is doing to the signal. No measurements provided, no direct answer, except that it's not made to USB 2.0 specification. So, once again, I'm curious. That's why I'm asking questions. That's why I would love to see measurements. Sorry if you feel that this is an affront to you and others. You have the right to discuss your subjective impressions. I have the right to ask for objective data and measurements. We can both do this without constantly trying to defend our positions.

[PeterSt]

"That's why I would love to see measurements."

 

The very last thing we did before closing up for holidays was stow away the measurement equipment. There just hasn't been time ...

But I sure will do it.

[lucretius]

11 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

advertising distorts the free market

 

Dishonest advertising distorts the free market. I have no problem with honest advertising, which may "improve" the free market.

[mav52]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I guess you've not read some of the feedback I got on this and on other threads, including from some manufacturers (not PeterSt!) It wasn't pretty.

 

 

No, not into any of these. But I am into astronomy and astrophotography, and I'm just as passionate about equipment, measurement, and objective data there as I am in audio.  More so, because there I've invented and published tools to enable objective evaluation and measurements without a major investment in lab equipment. I also would never purchase a telescope or a CCD camera that didn't have published measurements and specs.

 

 

As you might have seen in my posts here, I have no beef with those buying. I do want to see more accountability and transparency from manufacturers about products they sell. PeterSt was kind enough to engage me and others in a question/answer session, and although he was a bit dodgy, he did try to explain what he thinks Lush cable is doing to the signal. No measurements provided, no direct answer, except that it's not made to USB 2.0 specification. So, once again, I'm curious. That's why I'm asking questions. That's why I would love to see measurements. Sorry if you feel that this is an affront to you and others. You have the right to discuss your subjective impressions. I have the right to ask for objective data and measurements. We can both do this without constantly trying to defend our positions.

 

For my understanding, what would one measure on a USB cable and what signal (s) would be necessary

[pkane2001]

42 minutes ago, mav52 said:

 

For my understanding, what would one measure on a USB cable and what signal (s) would be necessary

 

Since Lush is said not to conform to USB 2.0 spec, it would be interesting to see what exactly it does. RLC, bandwidth, FR, response to square wave at 480MHz, the eye diagram.

 

Ultimately, what's most important is the signal at the output of a decent DAC. For this, a comparison between a good $10 USB cord and Lush in an un-averaged FFT plot would be good. Driven with a J-test signal for jitter analysis, zoomed out, and zoomed in areas around the primary test tone (per jabbr). Possibly a multi-tone FFT, if that helps bring out a difference.  Anything else Peter might think of to demonstrate that Lush actually alters the analog audio output compared to a basic cable. 

 

[barrows]

54 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Since Lush is said not to conform to USB 2.0 spec, it would be interesting to see what exactly it does. RLC, bandwidth, FR, response to square wave at 480MHz, the eye diagram.

 

Ultimately, what's most important is the signal at the output of a decent DAC. For this, a comparison between a good $10 USB cord and Lush in an un-averaged FFT plot would be good. Driven with a J-test signal for jitter analysis, zoomed out, and zoomed in areas around the primary test tone (per jabbr). Possibly a multi-tone FFT, if that helps bring out a difference.  Anything else Peter might think of to demonstrate that Lush actually alters the analog audio output compared to a basic cable. 

 

While I as well would like to see such measurements, what if these measurements show no/little difference?  There are valid reasons why some audiophiles do not put much value in measurements, and no, it is not because (they/we) are living in some kind of world of make believe, it is because most experienced audiophiles have heard a component which measures perfectly well (via the standard set of audio measurements) and sounds absolutely horrific.  Take a look at John Atkinson's (stereophile.com) DAC measurements: there are many where distortion products are well below the threshold of perception (at least commonly understood thresholds), but audiophiles clearly hear (and yes, even "blinded") distinct differences.  

My belief is that indeed, measurements are for sure necessary, at the very least to make sure that something is not terribly wrong with a product, but that the current set of measurements is not enough to adequately equate to audio sound quality, especially at the high end, where minute details at impossibly low signal levels, are what it is about.  As it appears the human ear/brain mechanism is more sensitive to time based distortions, perhaps we should concentrate on measurements in the time domain rather than the mostly static commonly accepted measurements.  Nordost tried to do this  a few years back, but when their protocol (using actual music signals) showed measured differences between cables, the deniers pushed back so hard (saying the measurements are invalid BECAUSE they show a difference in performance of cables, how ironic is that!) that the program was abandoned (at least in public).

Peter, I know that you have stated the LUSH is not built to USB spec, but this could mean many things: clearly at the very least it is not built to the design spec, which requires twisted pairs and shielding, but that does not mean the LUSH does not meet the USB performance spec (for impedance and bandwidth).  Many current high end USB cables are not built to the USB design spec, but many of those same cables do meet the performance spec (and sometimes greatly exceed the spec for bandwidth, looking for improved performance, like Lightspeed)-it appears from his cagey responses that Peter's LUSH may not meet the performance standards for bandwidth/impedance?

My curiosity is about the design of the cable itself, I know Peter appears not willing to mention this preferring to, keep it proprietary, which of course is his right for his intellectual property, but I am curious.  So far the little actual technical build info I have gleaned form his comments is that the dialectic is mostly air (not unusual for a high end USB cable).  Having the LUSH here, the one observation I can make is that the (rather burly feeling) outer jacket seems to be woven cotton... which is fairly unusual for a USB cable.

 

On the listening side, I am wondering what people are thinking: is the LUSH actually performing better than other cables, that is producing all the musical details while eliminating some kind of artifacts (distortions), OR is the LUSH producing a euphonic kind of sound by somewhat softening the focus, perhaps softening the edges and softening the artifacts/distortions at the same time?

[pkane2001]

Just now, barrows said:

While I as well would like to see such measurements, what if these measurements show no/little difference?  There are valid reasons why some audiophiles do not put much value in measurements, and no, it is not because (they/we) are living in some kind of world of make believe, it is because most experienced audiophiles have heard a component which measures perfectly well (via the standard set of audio measurements) and sounds absolutely horrific.  

 

I'll quote my own post of only a few hours ago, highlighting the portion I see as relevant:

 

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

As you might have seen in my posts here, I have no beef with those buying. I do want to see more accountability and transparency from manufacturers about products they sell.

 

So, once again, I'm curious. That's why I'm asking questions. That's why I would love to see measurements. Sorry if you feel that this is an affront to you and others. You have the right to discuss your subjective impressions. I have the right to ask for objective data and measurements. We can both do this without constantly trying to defend our positions.

 

[barrows]

Paul: of course, agreed!  As I mentioned, I would love to see some measurements as well, eye pattern, etc...

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Since Lush is said not to conform to USB 2.0 spec, it would be interesting to see what exactly it does. RLC, bandwidth, FR, response to square wave at 480MHz, the eye diagram.

 

Ultimately, what's most important is the signal at the output of a decent DAC. For this, a comparison between a good $10 USB cord and Lush in an un-averaged FFT plot would be good. Driven with a J-test signal for jitter analysis, zoomed out, and zoomed in areas around the primary test tone (per jabbr). Possibly a multi-tone FFT, if that helps bring out a difference.  Anything else Peter might think of to demonstrate that Lush actually alters the analog audio output compared to a basic cable. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, barrows said:

While I as well would like to see such measurements, what if these measurements show no/little difference?  There are valid reasons why some audiophiles do not put much value in measurements, and no, it is not because (they/we) are living in some kind of world of make believe, it is because most experienced audiophiles have heard a component which measures perfectly well (via the standard set of audio measurements) and sounds absolutely horrific.  Take a look at John Atkinson's (stereophile.com) DAC measurements: there are many where distortion products are well below the threshold of perception (at least commonly understood thresholds), but audiophiles clearly hear (and yes, even "blinded") distinct differences.  

My belief is that indeed, measurements are for sure necessary, at the very least to make sure that something is not terribly wrong with a product, but that the current set of measurements is not enough to adequately equate to audio sound quality, especially at the high end, where minute details at impossibly low signal levels, are what it is about.  As it appears the human ear/brain mechanism is more sensitive to time based distortions, perhaps we should concentrate on measurements in the time domain rather than the mostly static commonly accepted measurements.  Nordost tried to do this  a few years back, but when their protocol (using actual music signals) showed measured differences between cables, the deniers pushed back so hard (saying the measurements are invalid BECAUSE they show a difference in performance of cables, how ironic is that!) that the program was abandoned (at least in public).

Peter, I know that you have stated the LUSH is not built to USB spec, but this could mean many things: clearly at the very least it is not built to the design spec, which requires twisted pairs and shielding, but that does not mean the LUSH does not meet the USB performance spec (for impedance and bandwidth).  Many current high end USB cables are not built to the USB design spec, but many of those same cables do meet the performance spec (and sometimes greatly exceed the spec for bandwidth, looking for improved performance, like Lightspeed)-it appears from his cagey responses that Peter's LUSH may not meet the performance standards for bandwidth/impedance?

My curiosity is about the design of the cable itself, I know Peter appears not willing to mention this preferring to, keep it proprietary, which of course is his right for his intellectual property, but I am curious.  So far the little actual technical build info I have gleaned form his comments is that the dialectic is mostly air (not unusual for a high end USB cable).  Having the LUSH here, the one observation I can make is that the (rather burly feeling) outer jacket seems to be woven cotton... which is fairly unusual for a USB cable.

 

On the listening side, I am wondering what people are thinking: is the LUSH actually performing better than other cables, that is producing all the musical details while eliminating some kind of artifacts (distortions), OR is the LUSH producing a euphonic kind of sound by somewhat softening the focus, perhaps softening the edges and softening the artifacts/distortions at the same time?

 

After experimenting with many products, reading what the product manufacturers or engineers say in forums or state in formal documents about their products, and reading the opinions of others in multiple forums who test these products, I have come to the conclusion that many are sound shaping.  Please note my use of the term "shaping" as opposed to cleaning or clarifying or any other term describing getting to the artist's originally recorded and intended sound.  This shaping is akin to DSP.  In fact I view it as identical.

 

I don't think sound shaping is a bad thing and it has its purposes.  We use DSP to adjust sound so that it's more pleasant to our ears or in room correction.  With regards to the Lush I think it does a good job of reproducing the sound.  I have only put a couple hours into listening with it, and that's from an sMS-200 to my DAC.  It won't work direct from my server to my DAC because my DAC's server driver's requirement to spec.  That said, I definitely hear an extended midrange and bass presence.  Why exactly is Peter's secret sauce and if he reveals the why then others can copy it.  Although they could probably dissect the cable and figure it out.  He's agreed to provide some analysis results when he returns from holiday.  If he does, then great.  If not, I'll just enjoy what the cable offers anyway.

 

In my opinion, a device or really the engineer creating the device, will make it to be as neutral and transparent as possible including designing the device to not pass or introduce noise/distortion/jitter/etc. Or they will intentionally design it to present sonic characteristics, also referred to as a sonic signature.  This may not always be intentional.  SOtM uses filters to remove noise and in doing so does shape the sound, but it's in an effort to clean the signal, not to influence as with DSP.  I could be wrong, and they could be applying filters to achieve a specific sound, but from what I've read it's to filter noise.  However, the inclusion or removal of noise has a direct impact on sound.

 

Unless we know the engineer's true intention, backed up with measurements and statistics, then we won't know if their product is designed to present the cleanest, true reproduction of the recording or they are shaping the sound to be warm and more analog like or some other signature type.  In the end it doesn't matter if you like how it sounds unless the engineer is misleading you to believe they are cleaning noise and you're getting the true reproduction, when in fact you're getting a DSP modified sound. 

 

[kennyb123]

7 hours ago, manisandher said:

If I'm using my SET amps, I prefer the Clarixa, but using my low-distortion/high-bandwidth gainclones I prefer the Lush. I would have thought the sound of the Lush would be a better match with your Spectral amps...

 

The fullness of the Lush balances nicely with my Spectral gear.  Likewise the greater focus, clarity and temporal precision of the USPCB balance really well too. 

 

When the two are compared - it becomes evident that the Lush gives up some focus, clarity and timing precision - and the USPCB gives up some liquidity and lushness.  As one more rhythmically inclined (I'm a drummer), I find it more difficult to give up on the timing precision, as that was one of the things that ended me up with Spectral in the first place.  

 

I do hear a bit of smearing in the upper frequencies with the Lush relative to the USPCB - and that's partly what detracts from timing precision.  I'm wondering if that will lessen with more burn-in.

[barrows]

12 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

Unless we know the engineer's true intention, backed up with measurements and statistics, then we won't know if their product is designed to present the cleanest, true reproduction of the recording or they are shaping the sound to be warm and more analog like or some other signature type.  In the end it doesn't matter if you like how it sounds unless the engineer is misleading you to believe they are cleaning noise and you're getting the true reproduction, when in fact you're getting a DSP modified sound.

I think the above remark represents a "slippery slope" so to speak.  The idea that, "... it doesn't matter" is not actually true in my mind, as here is the problem with this approach:  If one is trying to build a system that is true to the music (recording), then that system should be as neutral (in tonality terms) and as resolving (in terms of musical details and without any artifacts) as possible.  If components are being developed to "shape" sound we are away from being true to the recording, we are actually building a system which leans towards making all recordings sound a certain way.

The problem becomes more apparent when mixing and matching components:  the audiophile ends up in an endless balancing act, mixing "warm/soft" interconnects with cold/hard amplification, and on...  this results in problems every time a new component is brought into the system for evaluation, as the component in question may be neutral and resolving and "perfect" in every way, but in the flawed (shaped) system, this component may seem to not be so perfect...

While we hear much discussion about "musical" systems, and often how systems can be made "musical" by actually softening the sound (SET amplification, etc), in my experience, the very best and most musical systems which I have heard are the ones with the ultimate resolution and the least artifacts, and are not "softened" or "smoothed" to make them more musical.  Ultimately, the system with the most resolution, and the least artifacts, sounds the best, as it relaxes the demands made on the ear brain system and allows for deeper listening (connection with the music).

 

In regards to LUSH, my question would be: is LUSH accurate, and as such is it increasing resolution and reducing artifacts, such that the listener hears more music and makes a greater connection, or, is it reducing resolution in some sense, performing a "cover up" of musical artifacts?