Lush^2 - Share your configuration experiences

[FileMakerDev]

Hello, I've been lurking and experimenting since receiving my Lush^2 a couple weeks ago, using the various recipes posted here as my guide. I've tried 7 different configurations, and this one sounds best on my system.

 

    A: B-W-R    B: B-W

 

My audio chain is UltraRendu > Lush^2 > ISORegen > Light Harmonic Lightspeed > DAC

 

Like @austinpop, I expected to place the Lush^2 between the IR and the DAC, but was surprised to discover that I prefer it between the UR and IR by a considerable margin.

[FileMakerDev]

3 hours ago, Superdad said:

20 hours ago, FileMakerDev said:

My audio chain is UltraRendu > Lush^2 > ISORegen > Light Harmonic Lightspeed > DAC

 

Like @austinpop, I expected to place the Lush^2 between the IR and the DAC, but was surprised to discover that I prefer it between the UR and IR by a considerable margin.

 

That's cool.  Perhaps now might be a good time for @PeterSt to at last burn-in and give a listen to the ISO REGEN/UltraCap LPS-1.2 bundle (that we traded to him for two Lush^2 cables months ago).  But then he might go mad with more combinations to experiment with!  

 

Forgot to mention... the UR and the IR are each powered by their own LPS 1.2.

[FileMakerDev]

On 1/16/2019 at 10:39 PM, FileMakerDev said:

I've tried 7 different configurations, and this one sounds best on my system.

 

    A: B-W-R    B: B-W 

 

FWIW, the reason I've, for the time being at any rate, settled on this is that, according to my listening notes, it strikes a good balance between the "marvelous sound which keeps on being strange" of A:B-W-Y B:B-W (Peter's description) and the clarity and dynamic slam of A:B-W,R-Y B:B-W

[FileMakerDev]

2 hours ago, bluebeat said:

I like what A: B-W-R B: B-W  is doing. More balanced compared to A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W- R. The ultra wide soundstage of A: B-W-Y B: B-W is gone of course, but soundstage depth is back. On the other hand it sounds a bit dark to me. I'll continue to use it for now, trying not to switch to quick. 

 

I agree w/ your assessment. On my system "a bit dark" translates to "sensibly weighted"... serving as a reminder that we sometimes use component "B" to balance an existing component "A" in our system. In my case, all my interconnects are silver and the high end is very clear.

[FileMakerDev]

46 minutes ago, oilpaint said:

I also have listened to my AudioQuest Diamond USB ($550+-) and prefer the Lush2.

Same here. My AQ Diamond has been retired.

[FileMakerDev]

On 1/20/2019 at 3:08 AM, AmusedToD said:

 

After additional testing this morning, all I can say is that A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R definitely rules them all. It is the most fluid, the most effortless, with great depth and ease, without glare, without a trace of harshness. Beautiful. No wonder the majority chose this configuration.

 

Last night I spent several hours bouncing between three Lush^2 configurations, the above and two others, playing the first 60 seconds of the same tracks ("Blue Motel Room" by Joni Mitchell, "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat" by Jeff Beck) over and over, much to my wife's chagrin. The above is too unfocused on my system... yes it's easy on the ears but at an unacceptable cost.

 

I don't necessarily think A: BWR B: BW is my "ultimate" configuration, but it's the best compromise between focus and sweetness I've found so far.

 

 

 

[FileMakerDev]

10 minutes ago, AmusedToD said:

It should be A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W-R, I mistyped it initially. Please try this one and tell us what you think.

 

Will do.

[FileMakerDev]

9 hours ago, AmusedToD said:

It should be A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W-R, I mistyped it initially. Please try this one and tell us what you think.

 

On my system Joni's voice is about 5db louder with the above than with  A: BWR  B: BW

 

It's very dynamic, but I find myself cringing a little when I turn it up. The word that popped into my head in the first few seconds of listening was "Technicolor". My system is already extremely dynamic and bright (845 SET amp, NOS RCA tubes)... I can imagine that on a more laid back system the above might sound fantastic. As per my earlier comment about using one component to balance another, given that my system is aggressive, a "mellow" Lush^2 recipe is a better fit.

[FileMakerDev]

2 hours ago, marce said:

5dB!

 

Well since I didn't measure, it's just a guess... I could say "significantly louder" instead.

[FileMakerDev]

Dear friends, I realize it is somewhat late in the day to be proposing this, and believe me, no hard feelings if people don't think this is worth doing... but...

 

To me it would make more sense to eliminate the hyphens and document configurations like so:

 

    A:BWYR   B:BWR     (  as opposed to A:B-W-Y-R   B:B-W-R  )

    A:BW,YR  B:BW     (  as opposed to A:B-W,Y-R   B:B-W  )

 

The hyphens don't add any additional value and make the configurations harder to read. In my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FileMakerDev]

On 9/3/2018 at 7:14 AM, 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.

 

At the risk of saying what has already been said in this topic numerous times, the Lush^2 is extraordinary. Thank you Peter.

 

Recently I made some changes to my system resulting in a more relaxed, less aggressive presentation, and yesterday I decided it was time to start experimenting w/ various Lush^2 configurations again. For the last couple weeks I have been listening exclusively to...

 

         A: B-W-R    B: B-W 

 

...which as bluebeat commented, seemed "a bit dark", and which I considered to be "sensibly weighted". This was a good thing when my system was more aggressive, but now that it's more relaxed, I am currently liking this one the best...

 

     A: B-W & Y-R    B: B-W

 

...and generally agree w/ Peter's assessment from last September (except I like what it does on the high end). My notes for this configuration say: "Nice highs, punchy bass, lots of dynamic slam." Micro details really stand out in this configuration, e.g., decay on cymbal splashes, fingers moving across guitar strings, etc... and the bass is very musical. Voices are a bit more prominent, but in a good way.

[FileMakerDev]

3 hours ago, oilpaint said:

Also don’t I recall that some people thought their system sounded better with the Lush 2 as the first Cable if they had two different brands?

 

I prefer it that way. The difference is not subtle. @austinpop expressed similar sentiments.

 

 

[FileMakerDev]

3 hours ago, matthias said:

I do not get the idea behind the Lush^2. One of the most valuable you have is your time. Spending time to try shielding configurations of an USB cable? Not for me.

I would go for one or several good conventional USB cables, certainly the original Lush is one.

 

I haven't heard the original Lush, but -- in my opinion -- the Lush^2 in its default configuration is superior to the top level (and more expensive) offerings by AudioQuest, LightHarmonic and Audience. I've spent over $2K USD on audiophile USB cables, and the Lush^2 is simply the best of the bunch. So that's a reason to get it even if you don't plan to experiment (and of course you can return it if you aren't impressed).

[FileMakerDev]

A: B-W-Y-R    B: B-W-R

[FileMakerDev]

Status update: as Peter knows, I purchased a second Lush^2 last week, so my audio chain is now...

 

     ultraRendu  >  L^2  >  ISO-Regen  >  L^2  >  DAC

 

...w/ both the uR and the IR powered by @superdad's LPS 1.2s.

 

With so many configuration possibilities, I've decided (for the time being) to run both L^2s in their default configurations.

 

My system sounds sublime. Top to bottom no exaggeration, plenty of highs and dynamic slam... I would describe it as focused but warm. Voices and instruments are precisely placed, but, somewhat paradoxically, seem to float in the air in an extremely pleasing manner. And this is across a wide spectrum of musical styles and eras (recordings going back to the 1950s).

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: thank you Peter.

[FileMakerDev]

And thanks to @superdad for telling me about the Lush^2 in the first place.

[FileMakerDev]

I'm sorry to say I didn't do a proper A/B comparison. Previously I had a Light Harmonic Lightspeed (which is a very good cable in its own right) between the ISO-Regen and the DAC. When I replaced it with my second L^2 I changed the configuration on my first L^2 from the config I last posted here back to the default, and as mentioned went w/ the default config on the new L^2 as well.

 

However, when I purchased my first L^2 I compared it against all my other USB cables including the Lightspeed, and found the L^2 to be noticeably smoother and a bit more nuanced. So unfortunately I can't answer your question. What I can say is that I'm extremely happy w/ the default config on both L^2s, whereas before I kept wanting to experiment. No doubt curiosity will get the better of me sooner or later (probably sooner), but for now I'm not messing w/ it because I'm enjoying it too much as is.

[FileMakerDev]

@ray-dude Very sorry to hear this.

[FileMakerDev]

On 2/22/2019 at 8:27 AM, FileMakerDev said:

Status update: as Peter knows, I purchased a second Lush^2 last week, so my audio chain is now...

 

     ultraRendu  >  L^2  >  ISO-Regen  >  L^2  >  DAC

 

...w/ both the uR and the IR powered by @superdad's LPS 1.2s.

 

With so many configuration possibilities, I've decided (for the time being) to run both L^2s in their default configurations.

 

And now Peter has suggested one might actually prefer A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W (a.k.a. "PNF", "Peter's New Favorite") --  over the current default ( A: B-W-Y-R,  B: B-W-R). 

 

Reading back over my notes, I see that PNF was my go-to for about three weeks in February, until I bought the second L^2, at which point I decided to go w/ the default while I got used to the new sound. I had also recently installed some better power cords, and done some tube rolling, so I decided not to mess w/ anything else for a while. Also, I've been extremely happy, and I felt like my system was already very dynamic (but now a bit smoother than before thanks to the aforementioned changes).

 

Okay, so much for background. Reviewing my notes for the PNF config ("nice highs, punchy bass, lots of dynamic slam", but this was before I'd made the changes to my system mentioned above), my initial thought was -- okay, I'll try it, but my system already sounds wonderful -- it's going to sound exaggerated and cartoon-like.

 

Well, I was very wrong. I am loving the way this sounds. It's only been an hour since I made the change, so we'll see how I feel once I get past the honeymoon phase. Note: since I own two L^2s, to be clear, I only changed the one between the uR and the IR... the one between the IR and the DAC is still set to the default config.

 

So now, for the umpteenth time, I once again find myself writing that familiar phrase: "Thank you Peter!"

 

[FileMakerDev]

17 hours ago, FileMakerDev said:

A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W (a.k.a. "PNF", "Peter's New Favorite")

...

I am loving the way this sounds.

 

Some specifics... with PNF micro details are more audible... Peter mentioned "metal", and cymbals in particular are to die for... not just more detail, but "fuller" sounding. Also PNF is a bit more dynamic than the default config, but, on my system, not excessively so.

 

After installing the 2nd L^2, and making the other improvements I mentioned yesterday, I would have bet money that if my system were to become any more dynamic it would cross over the line from realistic to unnatural. But that turns out to not be the case. If anything it sounds more natural than before, i.e., more like the musicians are in the room... a bit more three-dimensional and definitely "more fun", but not fatiguing. And I was not complaining before, believe me. This change is icing on what was already a superb cake.

 

On a continuum of dry-to-wet, the current config strikes me as slightly "dry", whereas PNF seems a bit "wetter".

 

In terms of whether PNF should be "the new default", I'm not sure. Perhaps others will give PNF a (fresh) listen and share their impressions.

[FileMakerDev]

13 hours ago, lmitche said:

Just for grins after reading recent posts I thought I'd try the (A: B-W & Y-R and B: B-W) configuration.

 

What a disaster! This sounded horrible, flat, thin and dead. Afraid that it was broken for good I did the world's fastest shield reconfig back to the default. Happily it worked and all is good again.

 

@lmitche's observation prompted me to try an experiment last night. Reminder: I am using the term PNF ("Peter's New Favorite") as shorthand for the above-quoted config. Since Mar 9th, my audio chain has been...

 

     ultraRendu  >  L^2 (PNF)  >  ISO-Regen  >  L^2 (default)  >  DAC

 

...begging the question what would happen if I used PNF on both L^2s? So I tried it... and...

 

My reaction was similar to lmitche's. It seemed as if some sort of phase cancellation was occurring and the result was anemic, chaotic, and unpleasant. I quickly reconfigured my 2nd L^2 back to the default, and the superb (literally best ever) sound I've been enjoying for the last week once again began flowing from my speakers.

[FileMakerDev]

On 3/15/2019 at 1:55 AM, Gato said:

 

• So now: SOtM tX-USBexp PCI express USB 3.0 with sCLK-48.0 >  Lush^2  >  ISO-Regen  >  Lush^2  >  T+A DAC 8 DSD
• All Lush^2 at current default (A: B-W-Y-R,  B: B-W-R) 

@Gato -- if you're willing to try PNF on the L^2 between the SOtM and the ISO-R, I would be interested in your reaction. Like you I was quite happy w/ the default config on both my L^2s and didn't think there could possibly be any improvement... until I heard it for myself.

[FileMakerDev]

@Gato -- thank you for such a detailed description. We are fortunate to have in the L^2 such a wide range of options, the ability to easily make changes for comparison purposes, and ultimately arrive at the best configuration for our own systems.

 

Reminder: my current setup is...

 

     ultraRendu  >  L^2 (PNF)  >  ISO-Regen  >  L^2 (default)  >  DAC

 

Your remarks prompted me to temporarily revert to this...

 

     ultraRendu  >  L^2 (default)  >  ISO-Regen  >  L^2 (default)  >  DAC

 

...and my reaction was quite different from yours. On my system, and to my ears, while the above is "very good", this...

 

     ultraRendu  >  L^2 (PNF)  >  ISO-Regen  >  L^2 (default)  >  DAC

 

...is extraordinary. I find it to be more dynamic, engaging and pleasurable, across a wide range of music.

[FileMakerDev]

@Doak

I'm not at home to take a picture, but the basic idea is that you always start from the pin with the red dot on both the "USB-A" and "USB-B" ends of the L^2. Let's call the pin w/ the red dot "pin 1".

 

The six pins you see on each end are electrically grouped into (starting from pin 1) four and two, so when someone posts a config like "A: B-W-Y-R", they're saying (on the "USB-A" side of the cable) connect those four wires to the first four pins... the exact order doesn't matter, as long as all four wires end up on the first four pins. If they post "A: B-W & Y-R", that means connect B and W to pins 1 and 2, and Y and R to pins 5 and 6. Hope this helps.

[FileMakerDev]

On 5/8/2019 at 10:22 AM, Doak said:

Re:  A: B-R, Y-W B: B-R 

Vivid across the entire frequency spectrum, though not overbearing. 

IMO a great addition to the top configs. 

My thanks to its “discoverer” TJHUB. 👍

 

I completely agree... just got a chance to compare the above vs. PNF. I went back and forth several times, and on my system this new configuration reveals more top-end detail w/o sacrificing mid-range or bass and has become my new favorite.

 

Thank you @TJHUB.