Lush^2 - Share your configuration experiences

[PeterSt]

All,

 

On 8/18/2018 at 7:52 AM, rickca said:

OMG we're really going to need a separate topic for the Lush^2.

 

The past weeks a countless number of times various suggested to create a separate topic/thread for the JSSG 360 Lush. Now with the Lush^2 out, this seems to be the time.

The Lush^2 applies the JSSG 360 tweak in a formal way by means of special connectors. Here you see 10 of of 10,000 or whatever countless possibilities, the 3rd diagram on the second row only showing the original JSSG 360 application :

 

 

The virtual problem is that no-one will be able to try out all the combinations with some sense. Maybe after a while we may reach some consensus like (it is only a virtual example !) the middle shield always needs to be connected to both ends for the best exhibit of the cable. Maybe people with good knowledge/experience are able to tell what foremost never should be done like never leave the source connector disconnected from any shield (virtual example again !), which will eliminate 100s of possibilities.

All I can tell at this moment is that the difference between one or an other is more vast than what I have read from many of you, unless you tend not to exaggerate - haha.
 

On 8/18/2018 at 6:49 AM, tims said:

I tried the JSSG 360 on my Lush cable and was expecting good things from the reviews the 360 tweak has gotten here but was disappointed with a drop in SQ; flabby bass and digital glare - the pre-tweaked Lush sounded great in my system prior to the tweak.

 

And that (above) can happen just the same because of what the (special) shielding achieves. And yes, with the Lush^2 I myself have already experienced the "flabby bass" up to super umphy disco bass (both not right at all) just because I applied the wrong shielding combination / config. It is easy to have it wrong but it feels like it is more easy to have it right / for the better by random attempts. But what is the best ? And how does it relate to the PC in use ? Can we ever reach consensus ? Will it be possible to find out the technical mode and merit ?

Just discuss it is also fine; I hope the result and findings will bring us a step closer again to the best sound ever. Where possible I will try to have answers to questions as well, but do notice that I do not carry any baggage and math to show you why a certain config would work out better than the other.

 

As of  October 2018 the preferred configuration all Lush 2's are shipped with is 
A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R (this nomenclature is explained in posts further down in this thread, like here and a bit more natively here). See photo below.

Preferred: the general consensus.

 

Then ... since March 2019 people tend to like my new finding, commonly known now as "PNF" (Peter's New Finding). This is

A:B-W & Y-R, B:B-W. You see this below.

 

 

Thank you all (see below),

Peter

 

Because the path to the JSSG 360 appliance deserves credit to @JohnSwenson, @lmitche and @austinpop but just as well to the all so many people who ordered the original Lush the past year and the really not few who applied the JSSG 360 tweak so we could get a sense of it really working - the Lush^2 is dedicated to all these people. 

 

[PeterSt]

I'll try to answer a first few questions I found elsewhere :

 

4 hours ago, rickca said:

@PeterSt what connection configuration are you currently using with the Lush^2 that gave you such stunning results with your 14/28 configured as a 10/20?

 

Side note : "14/28" refers to a processor with 14 native cores, 28 in hyperthreaded mode with the further notice that in the BIOS this can be set to have 10/20 cores used only. It is just a means of implying a very different sound (quality), most probably impeded by a different (distribution) of radiation. This is just a wild guess at this moment. Do notice however, how this fits the different shielding approach because it would protect in different fashion.

All changes are applied to the 100% same PC (Phasure Mach III) - only the processor is physically changed, or is changed for its number of active cores in the BIOS.

 

That all said, I hope people see the importance of mentioned 14/28 configured as 10/20 do NOT give the same results for the Lush^2 best configuration (as far as I went with trying configs).

 

Thus easiest example, hopefully telling it all :

I had a best config for the 14/28 processor. Next I turned that into a 10/20 (BIOS) and the same Lush^2 config gave crazy better results (FWIW of course, and I hope I can be trusted in expressing something like this, for "some" real value).

Next step was installing a genuine 10/20 and the very same Lush^2 config did not work out at all. Now the two-folded importance :

 

1. This same genuine 10/20 processor with the original Lush(^1) was more than OK.

2. This same genuine 10/20 processor turned into a wildly better result ever heard, with now an other config of the Lush^2.

 

Ad 2 - For now this is just trial and error, unless we start to see the logic (and the purpose of this thread).

 

4 hours ago, rickca said:

Is it the same as the original Lush cable with the JSSG360 tweak as some users have already implemented?

 

Rick, to answer your question : yes, but this is only because I tried it as a "last resort" to enable a nice playback session. Anyway the answer is a full stop Yes, for this genuine 10/20 situation. But for the 14/28 and 14/28 tweaked to 10/20 it was a very different (there the very first diagram of those in the OP).

So the real answer should be : it depends on too many things to comprehend as of now.

 

To be precise : although the Lush^2 can be configured exactly as an original Lush and also as the JSSG 360 Lush you people so nicely created, it can not be the really same because of the material topology not being the same. For example, if you'd put a Lush and a Lush^2 next to each other, you won't see a difference except for the connectors. It is as think, looks the same, though feels very different (Lush^2 is more flexible) and the Lush^2 weighs more. So for shielding the JSSG 360 can be applied exactly the same, but not for dielectric and with that impedance and the other properties. Also, among you guys each other, you won't be having that the same (doesn't matter and only comparing among each other is now more tedious).

Fun is, this is all unimportant because with the different shielding setup, all the properties change (at least that is how it comes to me) and you can make any cable of it (so to speak). Read : suppose you make the outer shield (of the three) the active one, then the dielectric changes because of that. Say that now all is captured within the cable inside of the 3rd shield. This is different from all being captured within the innermost shield.

Again and please, this is how it is in my head. It could be the largest BS as of now. All we already know is that the SQ differences are huge AND that the Lush^1 is all about the cable's properties (and not really about shielding sec (as the only matter) at all). IOW, we may think we change the shielding (screening) but what may happen in reality is that all the properties change (impedance, capacitance, conductance) and not even in a linear fashion (like capacitance and inductance are normally related).

 

[PeterSt]

I don't really understand why one particular connection configuration may not be optimal for different PC's.

 

Me neither, but I hope we are going to find out. But a rough first attempt :

 

First we must understand how the Lush^1 was able to change the sound to how it does that (I think it is fair so say by now that almost everybody at least recognizes that and that only a very few don't like it for the better). Again we of course think about the measurement proposal, which as of now has turned into something more easy because we can always work with the same cable but change its configuration. And Yes, I again have set myself to do it (but don't hold your breath because it takes serious time to do it for real).

 

Anyway, for me it is relatively easy to see how the configuration required for different PC's "works", so to speak, because I have obviously in my mind how the Lush^1 operates. Still at this moment I wouldn't be able to really make something out of that because it really would be too much guessing. Therefore the only reasonable hint should be about different radiation from different PC's (or configurations in there as per my previous post) - that being filtered by the cable in different means per different config.

Reasonable, right ?

Well, no. No, because to me it does not make sense for real that filtering the frequency or noise of a USB cable would change sound (all assumed bit perfect, as usual). Unless of course we dive into the now old Lush^1 thread and proposed working of that - then we allow ourselves to reason from there. Anyway, this is not what I propose because it is too difficult and should be proven somehow all the way first. But now the how of that ...

So for now after all and FWIW : different radiation patterns require different means of shielding. Ready for reality improvement ...

[PeterSt]

 

6 hours ago, rickca said:

How can Lush^2 be more flexible than the original Lush with all these extra layers?  How does the thickness (diameter) of Lush^2 compare to the original Lush?

 

I guess I can refer to "suspension" of some kind. Internally the cable is kept together better and it does not need to "knack" (??) to bend. The better expression would be that it bends more smoothly and that it also bends back by itself nicely.

 

Diameter of both is the same; you wouldn't see the difference. Both feel completely different though because more is packed inside (I propose to think of a kind of emulsie stuff feeling). What's packed more is more air than anything else.

I think this can give you an idea :

 

 

Connectors are the same as those of the original Lush.

 

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, rickca said:

I got a 1.5m Lush^1 primarily because of my concern about the unusual way the original Lush cable bends at the ends.

 

11 minutes ago, rickca said:

Does this mean that I can use a Lush^2 that is a bit shorter than a Lush^1 to connect the same two components?

 

Rick, no, not at all. Almst the contrary but it depends a bit.

Try to envision that the behavior of the Lush^2 is more like the ^1 did it only for the ends. This is harmless because at any length this can be twisted sufficiently so the ends of the cable turn out to be in a position you can use. Still the culprit is the same, though worse for practice :

 

11 minutes ago, rickca said:

At the "A" side of the cable (this is the PC side) the cable is made so that it can bend up and down - not sideways. At the "B" side (DAC side) it only bends side ways.

 

We couldn't hold to this any more. This now has become "at random". It is all related to how internal twisting ends up for the various layers and how the connection wires need to connect.

The net result is that you can better take a bit longer if you think it is critical. Certainly not shorter.

 

Thank you for this very useful question !

 

Edit : I added this text to the webshop :

Warning on the 40cm length :

Please take into account that the Lush^2 is flexible in one direction only - not in 4 directions (so to speak). And as we can not tell how this turns out (which connector, A and B, bends easily to which direction, you should consider that 40cm can be too short for your practical usage. Thus, envision that the Lush^2 can bend to two opposite directions only, you'd need to twist the middle part of the cable for which you have a trajectory of say 30cm (1 ft), in order to direct the connectors at the end to where they need to go.

[PeterSt]

14 minutes ago, RickyV said:

What processor are you using for the 10/20?

 

Ricky, Xeon 4114.

 

15 minutes ago, RickyV said:

So the two data lines and the 5V are not separated by shielding?

 

Haha, they were and they are.

 

16 minutes ago, RickyV said:

In my imagination i would put the 5v between the red and yellow shield.

 

That could have been done, but it is in between yellow and white (middle and inner). This is because else it violates your original Lush^1 and I certainly did not want to create a new cable with all over different behavior. So that's why.

 

Very good thinking !

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, RickyV said:

@PeterSt are you at the x-fi audio show in Veldhoven this year would like to hear your new server and cable?

 

Since x-fi (or its environment) decided that no show reviews "need to" happen and we're only dependent on the visitors of the show itself, we decided it is not worth it and don't attend. So this year not either. Sorry !

I mean : the reviews (Internet) after the show ceased to exist.

 

Of course we could organize our own audio show with local CA members. At least we're then mutually guaranteed of the best sound. I mean, I will know it is fine and you will know bad sound (if so) will not be caused by the show room. Haha.

 

Fact is that it could be very interesting for the cable alone. Thus, showcase how tf it can happen that changing a bit of shielding vastly changes the sound. Nice gag for such a show. Could be done by anyone (but won't happen because next "they" like to have money for it and your Lush^2 doubles in price.

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, rickca said:

Maybe with an optimal Lush^2 connection configuration we can go back to putting the ISO REGEN just before the DAC as the design intended.

 

What is the status (quo ?) regarding this and what did the JSSG 360 tweak change ?

(I hardly followed - or remembered anything of this)

[PeterSt]

52 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Peter, could you clarify the switches on the ends. How do you configure them, in relation to the diagram in your first post?

 

Rajiv, everybody receives a paper in the package with (sufficient) examples on how to make the connections per desire. It really is easy with that paper in front of you.

I chose not to publish that paper because it may be suggestive for by me trialled connections, which is not the case at all.

 

 

I suppose you have seen this by now, but if not this is to wet your appetite. It is also the communications means for people putting forward their findings. It is as easy as :

I connected black to white and yellow to red for both A and B (and this comprises the genuine JSSG 360 config).

 

One thing is important only : really everything can be connected (or disconnected) to(/from) anything else and that per A and B connector. And this gives more possibilities than you'd imagine, because it really is "everything". There are no exceptions or limits.

 

I still think you deserve to be in the row of originators, because you hosted that thread and were/are a huge stimulator. So thank you for that.

Peter

[PeterSt]

Yesterday, for a first time (after 6 days or so) I changed my own config. Just because I knew I could change things it came to me that I wanted the highs a bit less pronounced (they were not harsh or anything, but could be overwhelming).

I changed from the normal JSSG 360 config (which is black to white and yellow to red at both ends) to a disconnected yellow and red at the B side. Thus :

 

- Normal (inner) shield is active from A connector to B connector;

- Middle and outer shield connect at the A connector;

- Middle and outer shield do not connect at the B connector.

 

The first thing that I noticed was a more liquid bass. I'd call it even musical. This also doesn't make it a placebo appliance because I wasn't expecting that.

Later into the session it became more and more clear that the behavior of the highs exhibited the same liquid. For my situation it will mean that less of the "electric butterflies" will fly with certain music, and although that is spooky in itself, at this moment I think I don't care about that really.

The liquid bass (say "singing") is what I kept noticing throughout (2 hours or so of time).

 

As always, this does not imply it will stick, because maybe I will start to see annoyances later. Point is, that I have these kind of contributions in my mind for this thread, so later we can use it as a reference or plain guidance in general.

To be useful, this of course this needs confirmation by others, with at this moment no idea whether anything will work out the same for people.

 

Peter

[PeterSt]

Just now, rickca said:

What do you think happens to the signal when a shield is connected at A but not connected at B?  Would connecting a shield to B but not A be equivalent?

 

Rick, no, that will not be the same.

The sheer reason to provide such options spring from the time (2010/2011) that I had to decide whether the shield of USB needs to be connected to the DAC's chassis, some other grounding point, or not at all. I never look back at this any more (we connect it to "some" grounding point) but at least back then, there were no consistent answers to be found. Many solutions were provided, but all with a different reason and I actually could not decide.

 

What I recall of it, no options existed to leave the PC-side (or A connector) disconnected. This is logic, because a normal USB cable just would have the shield connected (both ends btw) so the options was just not there (and still is not, normally).

So what that was about was for the DAC designer the decision how to configure that, and obviously I have not been the only one to decide that (all DAC designers with USB input need to decide this, unless there's suddenly an enforcing law about this ).

 

Because it has been in my mind back at the time, for me it was the logical first next option to try. Well, almost, because this is only about the middle and outer shield, but you can bet that the next config I am going to attempt is leaving out the inner shield as well, and with that thus all on the B side.

 

On a side note, I already tried to have both ends fully disconnected, but although with the other processor, that sounded like a drag and didn't last for 10 minutes (muffled highs and nothing of interest).

I suppose (but should measure it) that not using the shield at all is bad to USB noise (the 8K multiples). This would be logic because it is an inherent USB frequency (tamed by schielding ?), plus I recall the sound from my first USB attempt, with poor results. What was wrong with it was the high USB noise (I could measure). Btw, most people would fall in the pitfall of such a setup (or any with higher USB noise) because it excels in the bass. But no highs and thus no interest (dead bird music).

 

I suppose I can come up with more "logical" trials and eliminations. For me they must spring from listening because many types of sound will remember me of some kind of set up ever back and how I solved that (issue assumed) or let it stay. And, of course, I must first have more experience on what causes which.

 

Imagine - assumed that the one sided shield connection like this indeed does a few things - what will happen with one shield connected to B only (I would take the middle for that) and the other connected to A only (the outer). Flow assumed (ending up in some kind of radiation), we'd now have two flows in the opposite direction. Will they cancel perfectly ? Net effect ?

What if the 3rd shield is normally connected end to end ? And if that is for the better, shouldn't it be better the middle one ? or would that eliminate the canceling effect and shouldn't it be better the inner one after all ?

Already the thoughts can go anywhere. 

[PeterSt]

57 minutes ago, lmitche said:

both ends of the screen meet at the endpoints with no connection to ground.

 

It could be that someone misinterpreted. Ground is not equal to the screen / shield. Of course for some cables it is (like coax) but not here.

I can't quote readily, but of what I recall is that the both additional screens meet each other, and not the original inner screen. 

... which, thinking of it, would be a bit weird if that were to be about a wire only, because John talks about wires, not "360" screens.

So you must be talking about an other text.

 

It is more complicated, because depending on the in-device(s) design, it is very easy to let end up the shield at a same point as the ground does. So only when that can remain fully separated, it is useful to nog connect the shield to the ground of the cable to begin with (now the designer of the device can decide).

And FYI : where the Lush(^2) does not connect the shield to the ground (wire) in any event or config, the difference shows in our Phasure NOS1a/G3 DAC; the shielding *has* to follow a special route because otherwise the isolation (same as in the ISO Regen) does not work or only works with errors. So that fragile the end to end connection of a shield is.

For that matter it was almost surprising to see that all of the Lush^2 configs we randomly tried, have no USB errors anywhere. Thus even with all shields disconnected. This should at least tell that the way the shielding has been set up (with thus three screens) already should work for the (way ?) better, because I can't imagine USB to work error-free with a normally one-screen shielded cable but that screen not connected at both ends. I must say, I never tried it either. Yes, thus with the Lush^2 now.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, Summit said:

Peter can my Lush be sent in to you to be upgraded or do I need to buy a new?

 

That is a very good question, and I considered that. But then I thought that most people would like a second Lush anyway (that is what it sort of comes down to) and foremost, the whole of the old Lush must me taken apart (also desoldering the connectors) so what's left is the bare cable which isn't the cost really (unless you buy spools of 1000' like we do, then you notice ;-).  So it is about the work (currently one person can make 2 a day which I hope can grow to 3). And now there's additional work in taking it apart. Add to that the shipping to us, possible loss with normal mail and ...

... And I decided it wasn't a good idea.

[PeterSt]

26 minutes ago, Jud said:

So @PeterSt, I am very interested in any thoughts you might have on construction/materials  that allow the resulting cable to be flexible.

 

Jud, like in "suspension", right ?

Sufficiently tight wrapping with the right material(s). But this can't help you. In any event not any metal braid.

 

I must say, it is almost art; Regarding my previous remark about the time it takes, I am suggesting a 100 things for speeding it up, but this all can't work (I'm told) because it is "fingerspitsengefühl".

Key is also that the soldering can't be mangled / bent. But this is out of your sight ... So if it can and you move (slightly bend) the cable at that point, the soldering joints break off of the pads. USB is a bit finicky, also depending on the connector.

 

If the impedance is impaired too much by means of your wrapping, things also stop working ... (matter of undoing it all and check).

 

That must be it. A help of zero. 

[PeterSt]

Roch, thank you for sharing. Careful with that lightning and that it doesn't get into your shields. Otoh it is extra double protection of course. 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, RickyV said:

When first started listening to the lush^1 i was a bit shocked it sounded all messed up.

 

I already had my text regarding this in for Roch, but I took it out before posting ...

 

Roch, and everybody, please be careful with changing configurations too quickly, because I have the idea that mine, now just over a week old, changes quite drastically each day still. Best is to have one config which may suite you, and leave that be for a week or so. Otherwise you may get mad and, for example, will not revisit a rejected earlier config while you actually should. 

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, RickyV said:

 

I was planning to connect all shields on both sides and let it burn in for as many hours as i can stand

 

Rick, consider connecting all shields serially. In my view that woud work better, assumed that a current flows over the shield, now enforcing all shields to carry the same amount of current.

This could be BS, but still I think that connecting all in parallel may be less efficient (already because the current now will be spread over the 3 shields.

Fun eh ? suddenly all kinds of things to think of.

 

Btw, this means - all in serial - did not sound right over here. The contrary. 

 

Peter

[PeterSt]

37 minutes ago, yellowblue said:

Is ist save to change the configuration of the cables with the DAC and the server ON

 

Normally yes, BUT, maybe not when no shield is connected at all to one of both ends (connection may be dropped with loud tick).

However ...

 

I wouldn't do it anyway because you may incur for a ground loop which is not there when you later connect the cable normally (or reboot the lot etc.). N.b.: "Groundloop" is nothing you will hear, but which will let change the sound (quality). And it is exactly that what you don't want, because you are testing the merits of the shield configuration and you must rely on being able to reboot etc. without changing the sound.. OK ?

 

Additionally, notice that USB connects in a predefined sequence (something like first the shield, then the voltage then the data (observe the connector for its pads).

 

Kind regards,

Peter

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, yellowblue said:

I would like to see photos which will make it easier for all of us.

 

OK, justified ...

 

 

This (above) is the standard JSSG configuration. What I recall of it, is that this sounds "better" than the Lush^1.

The nomenclature of this would be : 

 

A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W & Y-R

Connector A : Black connected to White (Connector connected to Inner shield) and Yellow connected to Red (Middle shield connected to Outer shield, both not connected to connector).

Connector B : Black connected to White (Connector connected to Inner shield) and Yellow connected to Red (Middle shield connected to Outer shield, both not connected to connector).

 

 

 

This (above) is the one I went for, for a week or so. It is way better and super special (in my system !). I call it the Electric Butterfly configuration (it sounds like that over here). Dynamic Range is enormous.

 

A: A-B & Y-R, B: B-W

Connector A : Black connected to White (Connector connected to Inner shield) and Yellow connected to Red (Middle shield connected to Outer shield, both not connected to connector).

Connector B: Black connected to White (Connector connected to Inner shield), Middle and Outer shield open at this end.

 

 

 

This (above) I am using for 4 days now, and it is so much different from whatever I ever heard, that I am contemplating almost continuously to change it, ... which I can't because it is too intriguing. 

 

A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W

Connector A: Black Connected to White Connected to Yellow connected to Red (all shields connect to the connector)

Connector B: Black connected to White (Connector connected to Inner shield), Middle and Outer shield open at this end.

 

What I wrote about this config on the Phasure forum :

 

Well ... This is the fourth day that I am listening to this, always thinking it is wrong somewhere. But is it ? My initial impression is that it makes all too low on volume. Second thinking learns that again more dynamic range is at play. But it is not about this ... I have a continuous feeling that things play inside out for phase, or whatever it is exactly. And talking about a version of spooky ... this is now Twin Peaks sound in most of the tracks which lend themselves to that somewhat. I just played Roger Waters - Is this the Life we really want, from of track 06. All Twin Peaks stuff. And was it that before ? not that I recall. What I recognize with this config as well, is that the tone/frequency has a musicality. It is not as stable as I know it from familiar tracks. As if vibrato is added (not flanger). Very strange because I wouldn't know how that would work. Albums which, again, lend themselves for it, sound like 20 minute Edgar Froese tracks from ancient history. I never play them any more because it is always the same. So how come that a. such tracks now start to sound like that and b. it only intrigues ? Yesterday I played Neil Young's Zuma and Cortez The Killer never sounded so emotional (of Young) like this time. It was the very very best version of it I heard ever, and I play this for something like more than 45 years, maybe once per 2-3 months. I am serious. So why is it wrong ? I don't know ! But is seems to me and my ears that at times all fades away to too few of most (only leaving one profound sound of melody). Help ? Why is this the 4th day with this without the slightest idea of wanting to try the next config ?

And in a later post :

 

I forgot to mention something from the Zuma album and Cortez The Killer (or Danger Bird because I played that too) : talking guitars. I came at this right after I posted yesterday because I heard it again in an other song and we discussed it over here. So a guitar can talk to you (intentionally through its player) mostly via the wah-wah pedal; without it it can also be done to some extent. So all the "wah" ever so much comes forward suddenly. Try The Yes Album - Yours is No Disgrace and you have it almost throughout (if the lead guitar plays). The wah is a (fairly fast) change of pitch but also a change of clarity, mostly from dark to light (so to speak). Wait ... : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wah-wah_pedal Maybe someone can make something of this. I will read it myself, later. I so much recall that the Neil Young track(s) suddenly were addressed to me and were loaded with an other dimension of data towards me, only because the play of the guitar was this other/new messenger. What I was also listening for yesterday, after posting, was whether this now again was another level of "analogue". Thus, more into that again. I didn't want to listen for that, but at some stage it happened that I heard it and from then on I started watching it. Right now (during this typing) I come to that again because of recalling distinctly that guitar speaking (to you) from a way long time ago. Thus, a fairly normal thing but it just has disappeared from my music playback. So, was that LP perhaps ? (and I am not talking about one with the hole not in the middle, that also changing pitch ... hmm ... ).

PS: What I also intended to write yesterday, with the Roger Waters album, is that it now suddenly was "ultimate psychedelic". Thus, while I find Roger Waters too much playing the sounds from the past (and for that it not being really new music) the added sauce now suddenly was Obscured By Clouds psychedelia in Twin Peaks format. Really a whole new level of presentation but so much of it, that I can't imagine that the shield of a cable is doing this. Let's not forget, this "wah" presentation is only since the latest configuration of the Lush^2. It has a directly connected inner shield and a middle and outer shield that connect at the source (PC) to the inner shield, while these two are left open at the other end. Hmm ...

 

 

I hope this helps and not confuses. I really can't tell at this moment (yet) whether anything of this will appear at random different systems. Please also see this in the context of me talking to mainly XXHighEnd users over there, that piece of software for various reasons sounding different to begin with. But with the Lush^1 it worked too, so maybe ...

Anyway, if possible, please confirm or debunk my description(s). If understandable at all, of course.

 

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, Lobbster said:

You call this pic JSSG, isn't it the same as "All in Serial Mode" on the diagram?

 

Oh wow, you are right !!  Not smart ! I didn't even make a photo of the JSSG config, I now see.

I recall that "all serial" sounded strange. Muffled. Hardly any highs (and with way too much bass, which is almost the same as "hardly highs").

Btw, the "nomenclature" I put to that photo (A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W & Y-R) sure belongs to the JSSG config.

 

5 hours ago, Lobbster said:

Mine came with the White/Black reversed at both ends (Black to red dot & White next to it), is this the same result?

 

Yes, result is exactly the same. I suppose that once you know how it works with the connections, you don't bother really what is where, because, well, it doesn't matter. Convenient for first understanding it is not.

 

5 hours ago, Lobbster said:

is there any suggestions what is best configuration during initial burn in?

 

Elsewhere I told that I suppose that the "all serial" would be the best for burn in, as all the current - if any  - will through each of the shields and it won't be spread equally over the three shields (or less shields because you don't connect them).

Otoh there could be the danger that electrons flow in an opposite direction of what you will actually use later. So what's special about this connection is that you force the electrons to flow in opposite direction for the middle shield.

 

 

... And I only now notice that there are obviously already 3 base permutations for the "all serial"; you can start with the Inner shield like you see here, but you can also start with the Middle shield or the Outer shield. But why not start with the Inner shield like you see here, while the return is not over the Middle shield but over the Outer shield and then back again towards the B connector over the Middle shield. So already 6 permutations for "all serial" ?

Unless, of course, you start to disconnect from the connectors. Then it's 24 (A floating, B floating, both floating and thus all connected). And I probably make a mistake because I already can't put the correct photo for the base JSSG.

[PeterSt]

17 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

I have both configured as the All In Serial Mode option for burn in purposes.

 

... But then better not listen to that. I recall that (All Serial) didn't stay for 30 minutes.

 

Burn-in, I think, is quite serious.

 

19 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

Peter - probably an impossible question but for the Lush gluttony prone like myself with two in a chain (in and out of a USB reclocker) any thoughts on whether having both cables configured the same theoretically beats having two different configs?

 

No, I don't think so. The normal Lush already changed position (by maybe everyone) in such a chain because of burn-in. This, IMO (!) can indicate that the shielding is relative to the device behind it and the device in front of it - the device in itself being a unique matter for behavior. 

My advice ? start with your Lush^1 at its original position and from there work out the Lush^2. Done with that ? (say in a month of time with the help of more people who now also start receiving their ^2's) then change position of the both (^1 en ^2) and try to determine the difference and how to now set up the ^2 at the other end to make it sound the best again.

Now configure your 2nd ^2 as the other one in its respective place and sit tight until that one has burnt in. Or maybe assemble that in some dummy system to let it do that.

 

Anyway, it seems clear that the serial config is not going to cut it. Add to that what I told before : it could even be plain wrong to let it burn in like that because later you will be changing the "electrons direction" of at least one shield (assumed a current flows to it).

 

Glad that the delivery finally worked out !

Peter

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

There's still a bit of muddle / smear - dunno what to call it.

 

Alan, maybe you missed it, but for me too the config you are currently trying is an odd one. But maybe I am as compelled to "something" to let it stay, which is unusual for me because I normally should ditch something sounding like this right away. But it attracts.

 

Generally, if you don't like a config, hop over to the next (but indeed, after some burn-in). I skipped 3 others wight away just the same, but it was three only (among which the All Serial). Out of 3 others. So 50% chance for me, the one but last at least normally sounding, but temping to try a next one (the one you are using).

Just don't stay around too long with one when you don't like it. It would be good if we all would perceive the exact same, but I don't think this can be done. And headphones might be a great exception - or a world within itself ?

 

Peter

 

 

[PeterSt]

I posted this on the Phasure forum (if you think it is too long, skip down to the last part with the config mentioned in bold :

 

Day before yesterday I thought to change my as of then config A: B-W-Y-W, B: B-W because no matter how greatly surprising it could be at times, I felt it had to be "wrong" but also and merely, the highs were a that too smeared for my liking. I mean, I know of better situations (regardless Lush^2) with the highs, and then also the conig prior to the just mentioned did that, but too much of it (too white). So in I went with a fairly random but "just another" A: A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W-Y-R. Thus at the source (A) Inner connected to connector, and at the target (B) all connected to the connector. Well ... No. Maybe I am wrong. but from the few similar permutations I tried, I recall that everything which connects at the target end but not on the source end, is odd for sound. Thus, something like : what is connected at the target's end but is not at the source end, kind of literally backfires towards the source end. Mind you, this is a line of thinking I adopt now, hoping for some logical reasoning. The sound of this is super short and super dry and possibly it could have something, weren't it that the basses become unrecognizable of it and the highs show raspiness (like interrupted 200 times per second). My notes (and you should keep notes too !!) tell that there's also a whole lacking "lower highs" area. And oh, it is the first time on this forum that I am compelled to talk about "lower highs" (whereever that exactly is). Then a next one came in soon, A: A: B-R, B: B-R. Aha, look, you can see that I now start to think from mere logic reasoning. Thus, instead of working with the Inner connected to the connector(s) I now thought to for a first time use an other - the Outer. Thus, at both ends the Outer connected to the Connector and that's all. It showed. This should be the most similar to the original Lush, at least to my ears and remembrance. Maybe a tad less special than what I heard from my original Lush, and/but for me outside of the Mach III Audio PC (but I am using the Mach III). Anyway, better than the proposed and supposedly theoretically best Lush^1 resemblance - using the Inner to connect to both connectors. Theoretically because nothing much physically changed to the Lush^1 now, except for all the additional layers of Shield and Isolation. After hearing this - nothing wrong with this and people should start out with this (read : we should ship the Lush^2 with this, perhaps), I can reason that the setup of the cable could resemble the Lush^1 because the Outermost shield is the one which is connected. So indeed, for the Lush^1 this would be true too (because there is only one shield it would be the Outermost, right ?). I listened to this config for the next two hours, before the say was over. My idea about it : nothing wrong with it, but most certainly also nothing special with it. Then yesterday came. Long before the playback session of the evening I had already written down a new A: A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R. And with this, I forced nyself to find configs "with reason". And well, this one is about the thought of balance, and how the Middle shield connects to the both connectors, that shield in itself protected by and surrounded with the two other shields. The "protected by" is quite explicit, because if those two, Inner and Outer would also connect to the connectors, it wouldn't be protective (in my electrical view and thinking). Thus, both the Inner and Outer shields just open ended at both sides, BUT connected to each other and thus not to the Middle shield. And really, at the first hit (I am serious !) you can hear it is right. This one, so far, has it all. It shows superb bass which also sings (see earlier post). It has highs which are "normal", but which somehow manage to squeeze out even more detail all over (read : actually continuously and not only "occasionally"). All, really all contains new sounds while at the same time music as such is playing (this latter is THE task). The electric butterflies are there, meaning that the spookiness is all over there again, but this time never in a way that you'd think : right, nice, but this has to be wrong. What is completely new is what I think exactly lacked at the first config I wrote about in this post : an area of lower highs which now is profound. It makes electric guitars show a super steadiness, opposed to flanger (hopefully it is clear what I mean here). It is also the area where leannes could happen - as I now learned. Something like : if there's a profound top end but right under that there's a relative nothing, we might experience this as lean. Make that the other way around and the sound becomes full, with as key the top end still being there as much as before (or otherwise the stuffed ears feeling becomes profound). Somehow this config not only comes across as correct all over and balanced all over (which would be the same thing) but also as technically behaving consistently over the whole (audible) frequency range. This in itself would be the same as "balanced" but this latter is only the expression of the behavior (and how we perceive it). Thus, while this shielding is somehow attacking frequency areas, this config attacks all areas similarly, or, does not inluence them similarly (this is about what actually is the culprit in there - which we or at least I don't know yet). If there is one thing that could be improved upon - after my observation of 3-4 hours of listening to this - it is mentioned now more profound lower highs. I mean, I like that very much, but the toilet test shows that exactly these frequencies are heard best being in the toilet, behind two closed doors down the road. I will listen to this for several days now (unless something starts to annoy) and for those who like to experiment faster than me, my next one undoubtedly will be this one : A: A: B-Y & W-R, B: W-R. This disconnected the Middle from the target (B) connector and leave it open. The "protection" of the other two shields remain as they were. Peter

 

If possible, let me know your thoughts, because we could be seeking for behavior which expresses the same with everybody. On that matter I also mentioned the not-at-all working config (beginning of post).

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

44 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

Any chance of a picture?

 

Hi Alan - no time for a picture (must rush); At both ends of the cable, of the 6 pin connector, put the pair like B-Y on the first two pins and W-R on the 5th and 6th pin (the last two pins).

You can put the jumper in the middle for protecting pin 3 & 4 from "shortcutting" to anything (but the connection the jumper will make does nothing).

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, elcorso said:

PS/ Just beginning test with George music.

 

Haha

 

Best is to remember the colors like this :

 

Black, the most close to "ground" for its color, is the wire connected to the connector, A, or B.

A is the connector for the source ((towards) the computer side) and B is the connector for the target ((towards) the DAC side).

 

White is the first lightest color and it resembles the shield the most close to the core of the cable. It is also the same shield as in the original Lush. The Inner shield.

 

Yellow is the next more profound color. It is connected to the middle shield.

 

Red is the most profound color. It is connected to the Outer shield.

 

10 minutes ago, elcorso said:

A: A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R

 

 

Yes Roch, perfect. So the Middle shield (yellow) connects here to the connector (both A and B the same).

The Inner shield and Outer shield (white and R) connect to each other and not to the connector (both A and B the same).

 

Peter