Lush^2 - Share your configuration experiences

[fas42]

Just a quick note to say that I went through a "mad" period of trying to shield everything, on a totally conventional CDP -> amp -> speakers setup, and experimented with every combination of connecting the shields to anything else - and got the same sort of results as Peter did, . A sort of insanity overcomes one, - thank goodness, I've calmed down a bit now  ... there will an optimum way of doing it, but it may take quite a bit of investigation to work that out.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, yellowblue said:

I got curious and tried your third configuration and started with it (after 80 hours burn in). You should call it "the music is everywhere". This is pretty crazy! I listen with my Utopia headphones and the soundstage grew enormously, especially the height of the soundstage (which I always found the Utopias weakness). I needed half an hour to get used to it but I like it very much. Is it a realistic soundstage? I don´t know yet. I have to evaluate more. But this is really fun.

 

Yep. The "the music is everywhere" experience ...

 

It is "realistic soundstage" - it's the natural outcome of evolving a rig, especially with speakers, to the point where significant distortions are lowered in level enough for a full illusion, matching what the microphones picked up, to manifest.

 

Anything of a lower standard than this doesn't 'trick' the brain into unraveling the information it's fed well enough for a BIg Sound presentation to occur.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W
This showed a super sound.
It completely changes the sound from a somewhat congested (too white) highs to ever so lasting colored cymbals. Btw, this is what I had in mind with it for a change (I found the highs too profound).
What came with it is a super fluid/liquid bass which sings and plays music. I actually never experienced the bass like that.

 

 

The right direction.

 

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

A: B-W-Y-W, B: B-W
Marvelous sound which keeps on being strange. Listened to it for well over a week. After that week I decided it is time for something which doesn't carry doubts.

 

The wrong direction. If one has doubts, then it's wrong .. always.

 

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Up next (01-09-2018) :
A: A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R
Best so far ? Also see Phasure post on 02-09-2018.

 

 

It always can get better ...

[fas42]

22 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Last night we ended with ZZ-Top and I pointed out the lack of bass. Well, relative to what we were used to. She literally said "but I don't know whether they use these real basses ever". I didn't sort it out, but she could be right ...

 

ZZ Top's Afterburner album is a goto for getting synth bass sound right - this has a quality which evokes a deeeep subterranean heft, has tremendous 'kick'; a recent system which I heard this on, with two monster, extremely heavy sealed subwoofers, and fully DSP equalised was miles from getting this right.

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, zettelsm said:

This really is quite a stunning configuration. To my ears it has it all — deep articulate bass, extended grain-free highs, spooky realistic midrange, wide and deep soundstage, strong dynamics with lots of transient pop and rhythmic swing. It also had that elusive, quivery, energize the room presence that real live music has. It was very hard to tear myself away from the stereo last night and I didn’t get to bed before midnight. I’m very much looking forward to sitting down tonight and enjoying more music.

 

If this keeps getting better and better — wow.

 

Steve Z

 

 

I enjoy reading when people get a burst of competent sound - confirmation that the virus,  , is spreading ...

[fas42]

Perhaps this has already been answered elsewhere, but are the shields insulated from each other with a high level of robustness, of the cable in the raw state? That is, if one squeezes or bends the cable at some point along its length does this change the measured resistance - not impedance - between shields?

[fas42]

53 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Not a bad question at all.

 

I didn't measure such a thing because it would be the same as using a normal USB (printer etc.) cable and measure between the positive and negative data wire to see whether there's a resistance less than infinity, and if not, whether conduction occurs when the cable is bended. We don't do that because we don't expect it to happen "by miles".

 

 

OK, why I asked the question is because I came across this post,

 

and I'm not sure whether you answered that concern in your reply, Peter, .

[fas42]

The way to look at it is that this cable takes away a significant layer of factors that cause the playback to distort - your rig has the inherent ability to operate a "whole new level of performance", and what the lush^2 does is to "get out of the way" - it's "better", because it does absolutely nothing to disturb the functioning elsewhere "better" than other cables ... .

[fas42]

3 hours ago, elcorso said:

 

BTW, do you own a Lush^2 ?

 

Simple speculation does not help anything to others !!!

 

Roch

 

No, but I've explored enough with cabling to appreciate how important it is to eliminate every bottleneck in getting the SQ one is after. The fact that altering the shielding configuration alters how the SQ is perceived immediately informs one that a nominally unimportant area of the setup is in fact important - even though it's "only digital" . Which means that the real answers are to make the analogue areas completely impervious to how the digital is set up - the latter is not trivial to do, and so using the Lush^2 or a DIY equivalent is a 'shortcut' to achieving the desired SQ - I have done similar so many times, for myself, to "prove the point". Which is, consider everything is on the table until you can 'prove' otherwise ...

[fas42]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

 

 

 

Yes Frank. Of course I should thank you for generously putting up texts like this to help, but it isn't even correct. I mean, with the wrong configuration all is in the way and nothing seems to be - or sounds good.

 

The "wrong configuration" means that the behaviour of the cable has been altered enough for the following circuitry to be adversely affected. In cabling between instrumentation devices, precisely how the shielding is setup can severely affect the readings one gets - there is 'right' way and a 'wrong' way to do this, which is independent of how the cable is constructed along its length. What you've provided is a means for people to play with this, to optimise per the rig they're using.

[fas42]

59 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yes, but I still like you to refrain from comments as if you own one yourself. I think there's enough shouting around on the internet, and personally I don't like to be part of that commercial scene.

Now, can I get you one ?

hahaha

 

Well, you can try to convince me  ... what I'm "throwing into the mix" is the concept that something doesn't make a system "better"; rather, it's a problem solver. The commercial audio scene is justifiably laughed at by those outside it, and many within it , because everything is going to "make your system 10 times better !!!" ... ummm, no ... with luck , it might push one's system that bit closer to convincing sound. It's a bit like the story of how one can never reach the finish line, because it always takes some minute length of time to halve the distance between you and the line - therefore, you never reach it! Luckily, in the real world people reach the end point all the time, - and I like to mention, in my troublesome fashion on CA, that the world of audio is not excluded from that "miracle" ...

[fas42]

Peter, sorry to disrupt Yet Again ... but I'm perusing the Lush thread on your forum, and noted your comment,

 

Quote

It is now not spooky any more, but completely "impossible". Still it exists. It is right here and everywhere (around me). Together with that, it is all so "mild" regarding possible hurting ears stuff. Nothing hurts. All is mighty interesting.

 

This is mighty familiar territory for me, and I enjoy coming across other people's accounts of experiencing this standard - congrats on putting together a cable that allows people to push their system to such levels ... .

[fas42]

1 hour ago, lmitche said:

Wow, that did it! At least here, I am amazed at what A: B-Y & W-R B: B-Y & W-R does here, especially after being properly implemented. I've listened to the entire "Trinity Revisited" album from the Cowboy Junkies and it is holographic! I can't believe what I am hearing.

 

Have any of you given this config a proper breakin period on the Lush2?

 

At this point I'm afraid to change anything for fear of ruining the glorious SQ here.

 

 

Bit of a theme coming through ... . Those have never got a rig to the edge of "competent" sound, and then did just enough to push it over to the top of the plateau will find it hard to understand what the difference is - something that seems "miraculous", .

 

Never fear, that SQ can always be retrieved  - as someone who has played with setups hovering in that zone for decades I can say that it is both fragile, and infinitely repeatable; the real task is to make that standard robust, available at "the push of a button".

[fas42]

Man, have we now got the best tool ever, for those dreaded DBTs ...

[fas42]

Is anyone getting head tracking when playing true mono material? That is, the soundstage remains directly in front of oneself, as you move sideways, say from directly in front of the left speaker to directly in front of the right speaker?

[fas42]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

... that I tried Michael Jackson on it, the first day into this config. It lasted no 10 seconds and it looked like all was wrong. An "ouch !" experience (which should not be). But why ...

Not sure whether this (Thriller) is part of the loudness machine war, but ...

 

 

This just reminded me ... the MJ stuff has been through the loudness wars fiddling, with each successive release, apparently. What I have is the unadultered original release material, which has no such issues - suggests one definitely need the originals, here.

 

I note that ABBA has been totally screwed in latest issues - I got a greatest hits from the library, and it was vicious!

[fas42]

Quote

(7) Then we changed to the Lush 1 to have a listen and everyone finds that it is not listenable.

 

Quote

Still laughing about that one. And well, that quick we get used to something better, right ?

 

Something that many people in the audio game find hard to comprehend - that once you hear what's possible, you can't take the conventional standards of SQ seriously any more, .

[fas42]

3 hours ago, xxx1313 said:

Up to now, I always had a number of ferrite beads on my USB cables, which changed the sound a bit for better, imo, reducing audible EMI/RFI. I liked the Lush^2 from the first minute, so I did not try any ferrites in the beginning. With the JSSG 360 shielding, I also did not expect that ferrites would make any difference. Now I tried them, and surprisingly, they do make a difference. With ferrites on the Lush^2, the huge sound stage collapses. So I will not bother any more with adding ferrites. Lush^2 is great without them.

 

Nevertheless, I wonder, why ferrites still have an effect on the sound (for the worse) with JSSG 360 shielding in place?

 

This is very significant, and gives strong clues about where the behaviour of the digital waveforms impacts the analogue side of things - the ferrites cause the sound to degrade severely, because they disturb the cable's ability to transfer the data in a manner which causes minimal disruption to the analogue processing.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Hmm ... it seems that we have a small problem at hand with one of the suppliers of a mere unique raw material for the cable. Well, not really unique, but with properties which can change when ordered from another supplier (manufacturer). I forbid this (we must all have the very same cable).

 

 

And another interesting clue as to what "may be going on" with this cable ... .

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, austinpop said:

The latter sounded better! So this is where things stand in my chain now. I remain flabbergasted that the Lush^2 made a bigger impact upstream as I've never experienced that with other cables. One can speculate about whether it is the combination of shields and ground, but whatever the reason, the conclusion is that a) the Lush^ improved my system SQ, and b) its ideal position in the chain was further upstream!

 

This says to me, that attenuation of noise and unwanted waveform qualities right at the output of the Zenith SE is critical, and that the tX-USBultra  unit is more sensitive to less than optimal waveforms, than your DAC is. You've identified the weaker points of the playback chain, so now know where to focus greater attention.

[fas42]

16 hours ago, PeterSt said:

@kurb1980

 

Especially this latter one intrigues me largely, already because I never experienced that. But further more and more importantly: in a fashion which did not disturb me, no matter how hard I tried to find it wrong. The most strange thing is that while the depth of stage is as flat as maybe a few feet, the speakers are totally undetectable. What adds to this is the wide sound stage (well beyond the speakers, never mind all those who claim this can't exist). So it is the whole presentation which is new to me.

 

 

Sorry to interrupt, but this sounds very promising - what is missing is the depth; I have never experienced such a presentation ... a thought, because this is exactly what I would focus on: once a setting has been made, I would secure all the free bits of cable in that area so that it was a tight bundle - think of doing the equivalent to dipping the whole settings area in a setting resin, so everything is locked into position.

[fas42]

Something to keep in mind, that every time you fiddle with a cable, for whatever reason, is that you typically will bend or alter its positioning. So all the materials of the cable, whether metals or plastics, will undergo stress; they have been shifted out of their previous state of physical equilibrium. Now, this may, or may not, alter some physical behaviour which has electrical consequences - which unfortunately are audible.

 

I would make changes in the linkages in a manner such that the cable itself is disturbed as little as possible while doing it - just a way of reducing the parameters that may be relevant.

[fas42]

On 10/22/2019 at 12:46 AM, ray-dude said:

Complete madness!

 

Kidding aside, it still blows my mind how different shield configs on the Lush^2 can sound so different, and that has always nagged at me.  
 

Above experiments are about me trying to understand how different configs can sound so different, and test some hypotheses. At this point, I would not recommend anyone add a fourth layer, except to experiment. 
 

 

 

 

Not to me ... the receiving circuitry is too sensitive to the analogue qualities of the waveforms on the USB cable - everything you do to adjust, slightly, the nature of those waveforms will change the perceived sound, no matter how 'bizarre' whatever it is you do.

 

The proper, long term solution is to make the receiving side of the link far more robust - meaning that the DAC and other analogue areas don't react to this sort of fiddling.

[fas42]

Just a thought ... in these situations I would just try some smallish blobs of Blu Tack to firm up the physical coupling of the cable to the face of the unit where the socket is - think of using it like putty to "hold everything in place" ... may be of value, may do nothing ...