Jump to content
IGNORED

Lush^2 - Share your configuration experiences


Recommended Posts

I've been happily using a Lush^2 and Blaxius^2 digital in my system for about 6 weeks now. The Lush^2 connects a SOtM SMS-200 Neo to a Schiit Eitr usb/spdif converter. The Blaxius^2 connects the Eitr spdif output to my Bryston preamp/dac rca spdif input. The Blaxius^2 came configured as A: [W] B-R, B: [W] B-R. The [W] is always connected. The Lush^2 came configured as A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R.

 

I used the cables in that same configuration for about the first month. I was very happy, with no real interest in experimenting with any different configuration.

 

On Jan. 16, I switched the Lush^2 to A: B-W-Y, B: B-W after reading the positive comments. I left Blaxius unchanged. I liked this combination and continued using it until Jan. 23, when I switched the Lush^2 to A: B-Y, B: after reading comments from Peter. Blaxius was unchanged. I liked this as well, although I thought something was off slightly with the very bottom bass. It almost seemed like there was some kind of new room response node at the lowest frequencies.

 

I would say at this point my Lush^2 preference was a toss up between A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R and A: B-W-Y, B: B-W with A: B-Y, B: being a close third choice.

 

At this point no changes had been made to the Blaxius^2. On Jan 24 I decided to try the Lush^2 with the same configuration as the Blaxius^2, thinking (at least to my uneducated mind) that it might make sense if the cables were all using the same shielding scheme. I changed the Lush^2 to A: W-B-R, B: W-B-R which I'm assuming is the same as the Blaxius^2 with A: [W] B-R, B: [W] B-R.

 

This sounds very similar to A: B-W-Y, B: B-W to my ears but there seems to be more depth with the new configuration. Also, I think the bass is the best for me with this latest config. I do believe it took a good 8 hours or so to stabilize/break in, again, to my ears. Whether this was true break in or simply me getting used to it, this quickly became my current favourite. I'm on my third day so far.

 

I looked back to see if anyone had mentioned this particular configuration before and all I found was this post from Peter on September 17:

 

"Yes, that is my latest "crazy config", which adopts the idea of a "cage" being around the middle, floating shield. This is :

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

Notice the lacking Y which is the middle shield. So it sits there in between the two others, those (the Middle and Outer) connected to the connectors at both ends, the middle completely floating in between. What would it do eh ?"

 

No further posts or comments on it but from this the next configuration was the long time favourite A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R, which is very similar with only the addition of the Y connected at A end. I'd be curious to hear if Peter made any notes on A: B-W-R, B: B-W-R and what his (or anyone else's)  listening impressions were.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
12 hours ago, Doak said:

Might I expect that this change will take some time to settle-in?

My experience with PNF config was noticing the bass change immediately. Beyond that I believe with this and any other configs I've tried, that there is a period, up to days for me, for "settle-in". Whether it's me settling in or the cable itself, it's always been a matter of days before everything seems consistent again. Nothing dramatic.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
On 4/16/2019 at 12:32 PM, PeterSt said:

 

 Interesting about the different default config your Blaxius shipped with. I may give that a try as well. I'm in the same situation with difficult access to the cable ends compounded by the added difficulty of the stiffness of the cable itself.

As far as what [W]-Y + B-R means, I'll use this picture posted earlier by Peter to try and explain. In his pic below, its configured with A: B-W & Y-R. On the connector, if the pin with the red dot is considered pin 1, then pins 1-4 are all connected together and pins 5-6 are connected to each other but NOT to any of pins 1-4. So B is connected to pin 1 and W is connected to pin 2 with jumper connected to pins 3-4. Y is connected to pin 5 and R is connected to pin 6. Anything connected to pins 5 or 6 is shown after & (as peter wrote) or + as I wrote. I guess I should have just used & as well to be consistent.

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.

 

Quote

Many people ask for a photo of

A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W

AKA "PNF". So here it is:

 

DSC01032a.JPG.dad1d0a6fb009c869c1ca696d667340b.JPG

 

 

 

Link to comment

Sorry for all the confusion. First, my post attempting to explain in response to TheAttorney using the picture Peter posted in an earlier post got messed up somehow. My response somehow got inserted in the quoted portion from Peter's original post with the picture, which I see could easily make it appear that response was from Peter.

Second, because my understanding is that with the Blaxius^2 digital cable, W is always connected at each end, then with no other wires connected at the connectors, meaning black, red and yellow are not connected to the connector, then this would be described as A: W, B:W. or as Peter has shown for Blaxius^2, A:[W], B:[W]. So to get the PNF^2 configuration of A: W-Y&B-R,  I assumed since W is always connected, and from looking at the printout showing different configurations that came with the Blaxius^2, which appears to show W as always connected to the first 4 pin portion of the connector, then connecting Y to one of the first 4 pins would be the same as A:W-Y or as Peter uses, A:[W]-Y. In actuality all I've done is connect Yellow (Y) to one of the first 4 pins. I have no idea electrically how this is actually connected.

I hope this helps explain my thinking with showing [W]-Y. As far as Peter talking about B also always being connected, or necessary to be connected, this is the first time I've heard or seen this mentioned. It definitely wasn't mentioned in the included printout I received with my Blaxius^2.

😵

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

It's getting even more confusing trying to follow the different configurations with the recent attempt to introduce a new nomenclature. 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? Are the people pushing for this going to mail out new paperwork to replace the paperwork describing the configurations that was included with the cables at time of purchase?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...