Lush^2 - Share your configuration experiences

[TheAttorney]

For those that have had the chance to compare (possibily only PeterST at this stage), do the different lengths of cable affect the level of sound characteristics with each config setting?

 

E.g. common sense would suggest that a 1M cable would more clearly show the differences than a 0.4M cable - because there is more of the different screening config being used. But common sense doesn't always apply to high end audio ?

 

Also, for those who have an ISORegen with USPCB, do you notice these screening differences more when the Lush is placed before or after the ISORegen?

[TheAttorney]

23 hours ago, lasker98 said:

I've been using the Blaxius^2 with the as received A: [W] B-R, B: [W] B-R config. I've been very happy with the combination of these two cables. ......

Just to clarify, my Blaxius^2 is [now] configured as A: [W]-Y + B-R, B: [W] B-R.

Happy to see posts about Blaxius^2 now. I've wondered how many people are using them and why no posts about different configurations.

 

My Blaxius^2D pair arrived with A:[W} B-Y-R, B:[W] Y-R   which I think is a later default than yours. Anyway I've been blown away by the SQ of this between my HMS and DAVE, and I've briefly sung its praises over at head-fi, which may, or may not, be partly why Peter is getting more interest. I haven't tried any other config, partly because the cables are so stiff and difficult to reach in my hifi rack.

 

I may have a go at your new config, but I don't understand what [W]-Y + B-R means. In the meantime, you may wish to try the new default as well.

 

Shame that the Blaxius is so stiff - makes it difficult to fit when components are close together. If Peter could come up with a more flexible vesrion (and a bit thinner too), then he would have a world beater.

[TheAttorney]

14 hours ago, lasker98 said:

As far as what [W]-Y + B-R means.....

So to get [W]-Y + B-R, you would connect Y to pin 1 (since W is always connected), B to pin 5 and R to pin 6. I hope this is what you were asking about.

 

It's only the -Y bit that doesn't make sense to me.

 

If I read it logically, then Y is connected to W (which is always permanently connected to ground). And B is connected to R, but B is ground as well, so Y is in effect connected to B and R. So you could have written this as [W]B-R-Y (which is the new shipped default).

 

OTOH, If I understood your pin description, then you've added Y to pin1, which isn't connected to anything (because W is internally connected),  so Y may as well be floating in air. So in effect you have A: [W] B-R

 

What fun this is 🙂

[TheAttorney]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Now the one from February 2019:

Shipped (for Digital) with : A:[W]B-Y-R, B:[W]Y-R

Wrong, because the minimum is not in there. It should be:

Shipped (for Digital) with : A:[W]B-Y-R, B:[W]B-Y-R

(all shields connected at both ends)

 

Incredible as it may sound, I think you've just made it even more compliated than it already was 🙃

 

I think your first description   A:[W]B-Y-R, B:[W]Y-R    was correct, as that is how the leads are connected (with B connected at source end and loose at destination). So Y and R are connected to each other and ground at source, but connected only to each other at destination. Nothing wrong with this, because W is always connected as the ground, and it works fine with HMS to DAVE.

 

With your next shipment, you will now link B to Y and R, which is also fine BUT IS DIFFERENT to the Feb 2019 setting, so you will be changing the sound signature of your default, which I don't think you intended.

 

If I've got this wrong, then please, please do a full diagram specifically for the ^2D, so that we can see exactly how the W and B wires relate to each other

 

[TheAttorney]

On 7/2/2019 at 1:25 AM, lmitche said:

This is very close to the original JSSG360 USB cable. Take off the black wire and you have the same thing.

 

Er... No. The photos don't make clear that the Red cables are not connected to any pin, but that isn't the main point of my post...

 

I've recently completed a rapid-fire test of around a dozen configurations on my Blaxius^2D's between HMS and DAVE and was about to share my findings when I decided to give the @kurb1980 recommendation a go. I tried to keep to the exact pin/black tab connections as for kurb's Lush, but of course there is no white cable with the Blaxius^2D, so it can't be exactly the same.

 

Well, in terms of detail/focus/impact, this setting went straight to the top, but with a slight reservation that the presence region might be a touch overhyped. I haven't yet decided if this presence thing is because the extra clarity is faithfully showing up the recording techniques of close-miked female vocals, or if this is a real issue. I'll live with it for a few days, then compare against my previous best and report back.

 

In the meantime, I think kurb's recommendation is very worthwhile a try. In Blaxius terms it would be...

    A:[W]BY, B:[W]BY

 

PS. I'm restarting the "Ditch-The-Dash" campaign, as all thoses dashes just gave me dyslexia (and I know I'm not the only one). We could simplify it further to

    [W]BY  [W]BY   (with more than 1 space in between). It's never too late to inprove something.   

[TheAttorney]

2 hours ago, lmitche said:

JSSG360 = A:.WY1122 B:.WY1122

 

Your post may well have been in jest, but I just want to bring up a disconnect in the understanding of how JSSG360 translates to Lush:

 

I think it is BW & YR at both ends. And I think this is how Peter sees it too. It's in his diagram in the first post in this thread.

You describe it as WY at both ends, which is completely different, but at least now explains your earlier comment on kurb's photo.

[TheAttorney]

16 hours ago, lasker98 said:

Why the need to have an entirely different way to describe something that's already been decided on by the manufacturer of the cables himself?

 

If you're talking about my simplification proposal, then Peter's original notations made logical sense, but in practice have often been confusing to follow, especially when several configurations are being discussed in the same post. No need to change the original paperwork because I haven't changed the fundamental logic - just removed the unnecessary clutter of dashes and punctuation - so that you can more easily "see the wood for the trees". Hopefully this will become obvious when I shortly post over a dozen different configurations. Newbie's will still need the original to spell it out, but from then on, they should find the shorthand version quicker and easier.

 

If you're talking about lmitche's complicated version, well, I'm still not sure if it's all just a joke, but even if it is, at least he has thought about it to unambiguously describe the full picture of every possible combination. But he hasn't changed Peter's original style, he has extended it to include impact of the jumpers - whether or not this will be necessary remains to be seen, but at least one person reckons the exact jumper positioning is important.  I very much hope that it isn't, but will keep an open mind.

[TheAttorney]

I’ve now finished my first, and hopefully last, set of Blaxius^2D configuration tests. My objective was to find, as quickly as possible, if the default (shipped from Feb 2019) could be improved upon. So it was a rapid-fire A/B kind of test, which may not have done justice to some of the settings and I’ve probably made some errors of judgement. In which case tough, I don’t have the time or patience to spend hours/days on this. If any setting didn’t WOW me, it got immediately dropped. So as always, YMMV.

 

I tested around 14 variants, particularly those that others have liked. So there may be a label like PNF, or another users name if they’ve liked that setting before (these typically are Lush users because there are so many more of them). What works on Lush doesn’t necessarily work on Blaxius. I sometimes give a brief comment of what I noticed about a particular setting. No comment means nothing struck me as being remarkable, or I was just getting bored.

 

Regarding my simplified notation, I’ve kept the square brackets for Blaxius^2D, but other users just need to ignore the brackets and it all still works.

 

[W]BR      [W]BR         Blax def Sep 2018.  Noticeably worse than the later default.

[W]BRY    [W]B&RY    Blax def Feb 2019. Really, really good.  

[W]BRY    [W]B            lmitche fave. Ok, but thin, where’s the bass?

[W]B         [W]BR         lasker98 fave. A touch bright.

[W]BRY    [W]BR         Lush def. A touch splashy, unfocused.

[W]B&RY  [W]B           PNF. Good, worth a retry

[W]B&RY  [W]B&RY   JSSG360. Smooth, but flat, boring. Retry for bright systems?

[W]B&RY  [W]BR        Sort of Ok?

[W]B&RY  [W]BRY

[W]BR      [W]BR         Boom & tizz

[W]BR      [W]B           Smooth, but unfocused  

 

Out of these, I retried the Blax Feb 2019, PNF and JSSG360, and of these The Blax Feb 2019 won quite easily in the end. Which was kinda disappointing because that was the one I started with, so the pin configurability has proved to be redundant for me. I was just about to publish my findings when Kurb1980 came out with his new recommendation, so I tried that plus a couple of close variants:

 

[W]BY  [W]BY            kurb1980 Jul 2019.  WOW, but too much presence/lower treble? 

[W]BY  [W]B              kurb1980 Jan 2019. Good, but less WOW than latest.      

[W]BY  [W]B&RY       Good, but less WOW than latest. Getting bored, so stop now.     

 

 I’ve lived with [W]BY  [W]BY for a couple of days and, whether cable burn-in or brain burn-in, the low-treble peakiness seems to have disappeared and I find no downsides at all. So, in conclusion, the best SQ in my system is…         

      [W]BY  [W]BY           kurb1980 Jul 2019     

   

And honorable 2^nd place is…

      [W]BRY  [W]B&RY    Blax def Feb 2019

 

 

 

                

 

 

 

 

[TheAttorney]

45 minutes ago, austinpop said:

First, you said:

      [W]BRY  [W]B&RY    Blax def Feb 2019

but according to Peter, his "Blax def Feb 2019" is [W]BYR  [W]BYR (all shields connected at both ends). Please see below:

And indeed my cables arrived in June 2019 with A:[W]B-Y-R, B:[W]B-Y-R.

 

So before you conclude your experiment, could you please also try what you would call: [W]BRY  [W]BRY? How does it compare to your 1st place and runner-up?

Okay, I'm going to stick my neck out again and challenge the established expert by saying that I think Peter has got it wrong.

 

I'm pretty sure that my Blaxius had arrived as I had written (i.e. the R and Y wires were connected to B (ground) on the A end, but not connected to ground  on the B end). Unfortunately I didn't take a photo at the time.

 

Anyway, whilst Peter was correcting the [W]B notation, I'm guessing that somehow wires got crossed and he's ended up with a slightly different variation than before. For me it's a moot point because my new fave (TANF 🙂) is clearly better than what arrived. I'm fairly certain I did try the BRY at both ends when I first got the cables and noticed no obvious difference, although everything was new to me at that point and so I was possibly not very receptive to incremental differences.

 

I will try the BRY BRY option, but won't be able to for a couple of days.

[TheAttorney]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Noting has changed to the shipped configs ever. However, taking that "typo" in the with going paper into account, you have to know that I had to ask how the configs factually was done, before I could correct the paper (I don't make the Blaxius^2 myself). I was told it is/was done as intended, and so I changed the paper accordingly. Now notice that the fact I had to ask already smells for error... It was ambiguous. 🙄

 

Short of an un-boxing video, I'm as sure as I can be that my B^2D arrived as I had stated. Knowing that a 3rd party built the cable, it's most likely that on at least one occasion he interpereted the printed-at-the-time notation of   A:[W]B-Y-R, B:[W]Y-R   as no B wire at the destination end. So in effect we were both right, and so honour for both sides has been maintained. Phew! Now I'll quickly lower my head back below the parapet 🙂

 

6 hours ago, rickca said:

Does this result apply to the Lush^2 as well, or just to the Blaxius^2D?  I don't own either, so I don't understand whether this is a valid config for the Lush^2.

 

Remember that this started with kurb1980 saying this was the best setting yet for his Lush^2, and he's been doing this for several months, so it's a good sign. OTOH, lmitche wasn't convinced on first pass. We just need a few more impressions from others. One thing I have noticed is that everything else still matters. E.g. Whether of not I have a ground wire connected to DAVE. To get the most impact, all planets still need to be in perfect alignment.

[TheAttorney]

On 7/11/2019 at 7:08 AM, kurb1980 said:

Alright I think I found my personal favorite!  

On a side note I picked up some extra jumper caps so I could do this configuration. 

 

I'm curious how far you've gone with experimenting with jumper positions.

E.g. Are you saying that jumper on pin 1 and leads on pins 2,3,4 sound better than leads on 1,2,3 and jumper on 4?

And 2 jumpers on pins 5,6 sound better than a single jumper bridging 5 and 6?

What sort of differences are you hearing?

 

And how does that compare with no jumpers at all on the spare pins?

 

I put aside my scepticism to briefly try some different jumper positions, but so far I've not come to any conclusions. I.e. I have nor yet decided if any changes I'm hearing are real or imaginary. I'll need my system to settle down for longer to get a stable reference point (still with [W}B-Y  [W}B-Y as favourite)

 

Unfortunately, it's impossible to try your new personal favourite with a Blaxius^2D.

[TheAttorney]

10 hours ago, austinpop said:

I thought this was a different configuration, not just jumper changes. It looks to me to be:

- A:W-Y-R

- B:W-Y-R.

Am I misreading the picture?

I don't think you're misreading the picture - it's a brand new configuraturation, with no shield connected to ground, or JSSG360cubed as lmitche dubbed it

 

4 hours ago, elan120 said:

Is there any differences between with jumper caps in vertical configuration vs. no jumper caps installed (leaving pins not connected to wires exposed without jumper caps)?

I'd also like to know this, as I'm not inclined to search out and buy additional jumpers.

Also, although I know common sense doesn't always apply to this game 🙃, but I just can't see how the jumper placement on pins 5 and 6 could possibly affect anything - as they are completely unused in this example and not connected to anything else.

[TheAttorney]

After the success with my Blaxius2^D, I'm now burning in a Lush^2 🙂. This is intended to replace one of the USB links in my current (deliberately simple) system:

 

     NUC + Euphony Stylus server > TQ USB > ISORegen > USPCB > HMS > DAVE > HEK SE headphones

 

As the Tellurium Q Silver Diamond USB is a well regarded $1k cable, I'm expecting that the component to go will be the USPCB - partly because a flexible cable will be more practical in my location than the fixed USPCB. But I'm frequently confounded by what I DO hear compared to what I SHOULD hear. So who knows how it will end? But what I  can say right now is that on the first day of burn-in, with Lush (default confg) replacing TQ, the SQ took a couple of steps back. However, it has improved since, as did switching to the trendy new JSSG360Cubed. So I've demonstrated to myself that Lush burn-in is important. More on this when I swap the TQ back in after full Lush burn-in.

 

Which brings me to my next point: With recent talk about the significance of jumper positioning, I've so far had none of my jumpers bridged, and can't really say that I've noticed any difference. But how do these "solo" jumpers compare with no jumpers at all? I tried removing a couple of jumpers and thought I may have heard a tiny difference. So then I removed ALL the jumpers from all 3 of my cables (2 x Blaxius and 1 x Lush). I now thought the difference was more obvious and,  shock horror, I preferred the less-bright sound of no jumpers.

 

This isn't conclusive, as I have too many variables during the burn-in phase, and maybe it's just my imagination, but I mention it now for those people who are thinking of buying additional jumpers. I suggest you first try the no-jumpers test.

 

BTW, if this jumpers thing is indeed related to some form of antenna effect, then one of my Lush2 connecters is only 4 inches away from my NUC's WIFI antenna!

[TheAttorney]

22 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Nobody in our "community" uses WiFi in or next to the Audio PC. You should not either, for best SQ results ...

 

Yes, I understand that WFI can damage SQ. But best SQ is not the only consideration here:

 

On the Euphony thread, I've been posting that I'm on a DTS mission (Ditch The Spaghetti).

And with my simplified new system, I am resolutely avoiding any new boxes - especially those that require a power supply.

I've considered all the various WIFI alternatives discussed on this website and all of them require at least 1 additional box with a power supply, plus a cable. As soon as you add those 2 things, you can go down a vicious circle of fretting over supper power chords, super cables, super switches, super isolators, etc. Which I know is part of the fun for many - and that's fine, but it doesn't fit in with my DTS mission.

 

So it's a balance between cost&faff versus comparative gain in SQ.

 

My previous laptop server's WIFI antenna was built-in to the laptop, which I guess is the worst of all worlds, as it more directly affects the server. And yet when I disabled WIFI (by setting airplane mode), the difference in SQ was tiny compared to the config changes I've been making to my Blaxius and Lush cables.

 

And my new server (with wifi) sounds considerably better than my old server (without wifi). And as long as that positive trend continues then I'm happy. When I run out of KISS changes that make a positive difference, I may get back to addressing the WIFI issue, or hopefully by then I won't feel the need 🙂.

 

[TheAttorney]

 An update on my 3-way USB cable comparison – from the point that I had replaced my TQ cable with Lush^2 placed before my ISORegen. On first day, the Lush was a couple of steps behind the TQ. By the second day, Lush had improved, particularly when changing the default config to JSSG360cubed.

 

After 5 days, I put the TQ back. So how would they compare now? Did Lush now match TQ? No it did not. It actually surpassed TQ rather comfortably! Not bad for almost 1/3 of the price.

 

So the Lush stays. I then replaced the USPCB with TQ, placed after the IR. Surprisingly, I preferred the USPCB – despite there being about a trillion $ price difference. The sharper sounding USPCB seemed to be letting more of Lush’s considerable detail through than the more analogue sounding TQ.

 

My conclusion from this mini test is that..

 

1.       The USPCB is fantastic VFM

2.       The Lush^2 is simply fantastic in JSSG360cubed mode

3.        I’m glad I didn’t pay full list price for the TQ, else I would have been really miffed about that

 

I’m now wondering if I should get a 2cnd Lush to replace the USPCB? Thoughts on this anyone?

 

Somewhere along the line, I also briefly tried Kurb’s latest config (WY  WY, with jumpers positioned as per photo, and jumpers on pins 1 and 4 offset towards me). This possibly was passing through even more musical information, but at the time I felt it was too much information that was diverting me away from enjoying the musical performance. So my final best config is...

 

    Lush with WYR  WYR (and no jumpers) and

    Blaxius with [W]BY  [W]BY  (and still no jumpers).

 

I’ve stopped experimenting now, in order to get a consistent reference point and just listen to music.

[TheAttorney]

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

But a word of caution. Both my Lush^2’s are 1m length. On 2 of 3 DACs I tried, including the Chord HMS,  placing the 2nd Lush^2 before the DAC prevented a proper USB handshake. Replacing with my previous JSSG360 Lush solved the issue every time.

 

It gets weirder. I could get it to work with WYR, WYR configuration, but not the original shipping configuration.

 

Thank you Rajiv for that timely warning. It prompted me to do one more test in my DTS objective - to miss out the IR altogether - by connecting my NUC server directly to HMS via my 0.8M Lush^2 (and Blaxius between HMS and DAVE). And I'm glad I did this test because...

 

DAVE's display showed "No Data" despite HMS seemingly working fine (i.e. it's light showed incoming data from USB, and Euphony was happily playing the music file out to HMS (Euphony stops playing if it has a problem with the device it's connected to).

 

I tried 3 Lush variants WYR, BWYR, BWY at both ends, and same failure each time 🙁.

 

Many of us already know that DAVE is extremely sensitive at its BNC inputs, but at this point my consideration of a 2nd Lush^2 has taken a step back. Prior to this, with IR in the path, every single Blaxius and Lush configs had worked fine with DAVE.

 

Edit: the problem persisted irrespective of DAVE's tap setting, from pass through to 1M taps

 

 

[TheAttorney]

Ok, so I've solved the Lush/DAVE connection issue: it was user error!!!

 

Somehow, when pulling out the USPCB, I must have also pulled out one of the BNC cables - not obvious how this could have happened because they are lockable, so this one must not have been previously locked properly. It's all dark at the back of the mid-shelf rack, so not easy to spot.

 

Anyway, when I re-inserted the BNC cable, and this time double checked that it locked, the Lush direct to HMS now works fine, at least with my preferred WYR WYR setting.

 

So apologies for the false alarm, and this evening I will try out how it actually sounds like without the IR in the path.

 

[TheAttorney]

I've now listened to the Lush direct to HMS with 3 different pin configs and all work fine.

 

However, SQ degraded by not having the ISO Regen in the path - for once a result that met expectations, as it's no surprise that the NUC's stock  USB output could be improved upon by a USB regenerator. Maybe one day if I get a directly powered super USB card with super clock etc, then I won't need the IR, but for the forseeable future it's staying.

 

So a second Lush (to replace the USPCB) is still a viable option for me. I don't think cable length has much to do with DAVE/TT2's high sensitivity to BNC connection issues (I think it's more complex than that with many variables), but I'm likely to order a 0.5M Lush because that's all I need, and I've found Lush to be much more flexible than Blaxius. 

[TheAttorney]

I've now had my 2nd Lush^2 in for a couple of weeks or so, so time for some feedback:

 

This Lush replaced my USPCB between ISORegen and M-Scaler. In short, the Lush sounds better and well worth the effort - as some others have already posted. This was irrespective of the pin settings used, but nevertheless I quickly moved from default to JSSG360Cubed. I also tried the latest recommended jumper settings and, as before, I still preferred no jumpers - which is handy because this makes pin swapping a bit easier.

 

I put the short 0.4M Lush before IR, and long 0.7M Lush after IR - this simply because it made component layout easier on my hifi rack. So I ended up with...

 

     WYR     WYR   Lush,     NUC > IR

     WYR     WYR   Lush,     IR > HMS

     [W]BY   [W]BY Blaxius, HMS > DAVE

 

And this gave a great sound, but I also revisited Kurb's new favourite WY  WY (I still preferred with no jumpers) and this proved interesting: 

 

    WY   WY         gave a touch more detail and dynamics, but

    WYR  WYR     gave a touch warmer, more cohesive soundstage

 

What I really needed was something that combined both qualities. So how about directly combining these two with....

 

    WY  WYR  

 

And Hey Presto! My new favourite (TANF) - that was somewhere in between the other two, but with the bonus of a greater perception of depth,  which is very important to this headphones-only user (although strangely, width seemed reduced). So my final combination is now:

 

     WY     WYR    Lush,     NUC > IR

     WY     WYR    Lush.     IR > HMS

     [W]BY [W]BY Blaxius, HMS > DAVE

 

The full notation for my TANF would be

    A: xWYxxx, B: xWYRxx

 

I also tried

   A: xxxxWY, B: xWYRxx  to see if the antenna affect mattered, as the source end is right next to my NUC's wifi antenna.

 

And I didn't notice much difference. If anything, this new position was fractionally worse so I went back to the original position, as this is more convenient to try jumper configurations in the future. TBH, these are quite subtle differences, and any of the recent favourites would be fine - this is just fine tuning.

[TheAttorney]

2 hours ago, lmitche said:

The mechanism in play here, kinda like jssg360 2.5 with one end of the shield unconnected is curious. I'm wondering what will happen if the third shield is connected on the 'A' end vs. the 'B' end.  Has anyone tried that?

 

Yes, I did try this (WYR  WY) at the time, and it didn't sound as good as WY  WYR, but by that stage I was getting testers fatigue and it was all starting to get muddled. So don't let that stop anyone else from trying it.

[TheAttorney]

59 minutes ago, str-1 said:

...did you originally prefer the TQ to the USPCB before the ISORegen with the VBUS on the USPCB switched off (assuming it was physically possible for you to use the USPCB in that position)?  Back when I had an ISORegen (and also now with my tX-USBultra) I found things to be cleaner with USPCB VBUS off.  It does of course have to be switched on when going into M Scaler.

 

From memory, I've never got VBUS=off to work, either before or after my IR, with or without HMS inserted before my DAVE DAC.

 

So I've never had the opportunity to see how VBUS isolation affects SQ. But even with USPCB not set to its best potential, the fact that I only slightly prefered the massively more expensive TQ shows that the USPCB can punch well above its weight - or that the TQ was underperforming in this particular setup.

[TheAttorney]

On 10/12/2019 at 12:38 PM, FIndingit said:

Has the quest ended already?

 

See what happens when you speak too soon.

This is just the beginning!

 

At first, I was unsure about Ray's new notation style of replacing letters with numbers, but I'm warming to it now.

It will become more pertinent as we get to 6... 8... 10 shields.

 

Would that be too far fetched?

Not with the kind of crazy guys we have around here 🙃

 

[TheAttorney]

On 12/2/2019 at 12:52 AM, FileMakerDev said:

..... Lush^2 > ISO-Regen > Lush^2 > .....

 

I'm still happily anjoying TANF on both my L^2s after many months... however, based on some of the recent comments here, I thought it might be time to re-evaluate so I tried four variations over the last 24 hours, in this sequence:

 

 

Rather spookily, I've been evaluating exactly the same 4 variations for much the same reasons.

 

But first I pitched JSSG Cubed against TANF because it was so easy to change a single pin.

And for me, TANF won easily. Yes JSSG Cubed was warm and pleasant, and yes it had more bass. But that pleasantness seemed to lose some of the life and soul of the music, at least compared to TANF. And for me, "more bass" meant "bloated bass" compared to TANF's tighter bass presentation.

 

I'll report back on Default vs TANF in a couple of days, but one thing I can say right now that a seeminlgy small change to the rest of the system can skew the relative merits of these two configurations. Which further reinforces the YMMV mantra.

[TheAttorney]

On 12/2/2019 at 12:52 AM, FileMakerDev said:

EtherRegen > AQ Cinnamon > ultraRendu > Lush^2 > ISO-Regen > Lush^2 > Lampizator Big 7

 

I'm still happily anjoying TANF on both my L^2s after many months... however, based on some of the recent comments here, I thought it might be time to re-evaluate so I tried four variations over the last 24 hours, in this sequence:

 

A. Default config on both L^2s

B. TANF on the first, Default on the 2nd

C. Default on the first, TANF on the 2nd

D. TANF on both

 

The results: A sounded the most "canned" and least alive, B sounded better, C sounded better than B, and D was best of all, i.e., the most alive and convincing. Of course this was a matter of degree, and a year ago, I'd have been thrilled with any of the above. But having now been spoiled, my clear, unambiguous preference is for D.

 

For example, the ECM album BLACK ICE by the Wolfert Brederode Trio opens with a cymbal splash. C sounds great, but only on D do I get goosebumps from it... the high-end is wide open, and the dynamics are amazing. I could cite many other examples, e.g., on the intro to "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat" on Jeff Beck's WIRED album, only D has the ideal combination of "bite" and "sweetness".

 

I've finished my re-evaluation of above A-D comparisons. The first 3 were done in quick succession, but I then did long term comparisons of C and D to try to get a handle on the differences.

 

I short, I fully agree with FileMakerDev's findings, and D (TANF on both) was still best for me - and by a considerable margin.

Because of the recent love for the Default setting, I tried hard to like it, but in the end I just couldn't. In all cases there were no jumpers, which may have skewed the results, but I didn't want to faff around with jumpers again.

 

But lets put aside personal preference for now, and try to objectively look at the differences between Default and TANF - becuase one of these must be technically more correct than the other, in terms of accurately passing through the signal and in filtering noise:

 

I don't think there's any doubt that TANF gives more of everything: More detail, clarity, dynamics, focus, image separation, depth, etc. Images pop out more from the mix to create a more vivid and immersive presentation. It is more transparent in that it more readily shows up the differences between recordings, even differences between tracks on the same recording. I don't think it is tonally brighter, just more presence, air and sparkle when it's there on the recording. Which doesn't mean that I always like what I hear - because it shows up the bad as well as the good.

 

In comparison, Default smooths everything out, which makes it kinder to bright recordings, but also drains some of the life out of all recordings (even the bright ones), which is ultimately less satisfying for me. A bit like going from an analogue Master Tape to a 2nd or 3rd generation copy - everything is toned down a bit to be duller and flatter.

 

So which is more techically correct? Is TANF's hyper detail a by-product of, for example, letting in too much RFI? Or is it transparently showing up limitations in the rest of my system? My usual analogy at this point is "the more I clean my windows, the more I notice the rubbish in my back yard".

 

I don't really know the answer to this, but from what I've heard, I'm sticking with the Transparency theory and looking to route out the remaining weaker parts of my system to get to my ultimate balanced sound.

[TheAttorney]

Yes, my system is:

 

NUC7i7DN + Euphony Stylus > Lush2 > IsoRegen > Lush2 > HMS > DAVE > HEK SE headphones.

 

NUC, IR and HMS powered by 3-rail PH SR7.

 

And I tried the previously stated A, B, C, D configuraions, with D (both ends TANF) sounded best to me.

It still puzzles me why, if I have TANF downstream of IR, it still matters so much whether or not I have TANF upstream.