Lush^2 - Share your configuration experiences

[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).

[matthias]

18 minutes ago, FileMakerDev said:

 

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).

 

What is the default configuration?

Thanks

 

Matt

[FileMakerDev]

A: B-W-Y-R    B: B-W-R

[Confused]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 6:38 PM, FileMakerDev said:

 

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

 

 

Interesting.  If I get some quiet time at the weekend, I will give this a try.

[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.

[simonp]

What is the biggest improvement after the second lush 2? 

 

 

[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.

[simonp]

ha ha recognizable. Since I use the lush I am mainly listening

[ray-dude]

The Lush^2 must be crazy popular!

 

Mine (used) got delivered today, but this guy snagged it off my porch about 10 minutes before we got home   Hopefully he knows the what the consensus configuration is 

 

Kidding aside, the only thing more frustrating than having it stolen is not being able to hear it!

 

 

 

[Boomboy]

That's messed up @ray-dude . Can u hand the footage into the cops ? Parcel insured ?

[ray-dude]

Yup, but need to file the police report in person. That’s a tomorrow project. TBD if insurance covers this sort of thing, or credit card theft protection. 

[FileMakerDev]

@ray-dude Very sorry to hear this.

[Solstice380]

@ray-dude oh man, hope you can get some satisfaction (justice) out of this!

[PeterSt]

A couple of weeks ago I announced that I would revisit this one, with the description I gave it August or July 2018 :

-----

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.

-----

... but I didn't do this for the reason of announcing it this couple of weeks back. I merely experienced a problem with too congested cymbals, them sounding too white, and out of all found this description (above) in my notes. So with that as the reason I am now more happy than I ever was.

 

But there is a but ...

 

The reason that I found myself in a not-the-best situation is about changing processor in my Audio PC. Not that you guys would do this, but we can and do with the Mach III Audio PC. It did all not sound right with this processor and just before I gave up on it, I thought to hopefully solve the problem with an other Lush^2 configuration.

And it did.

 

The moral for "you" : you all don't use anything like what I use here for a system. But if this helps me for the better (against the "with consensus" by now for so long config), why would this newly brought forward configuration not be the one for you ? there's no real reason it will not ... The "with consensus" config just does not work out at all for the processor I use ! (no need to ask which because you won't be using it).

 

The mere stupid thing is that I announced this thus a couple of weeks ago to revisit, just because there is not a single negative in that description I put from my notes (above). Back at the time I just went on to the next configuration and never looked back at this one (and that most probably in a not burned in Lush^2 situation because this is my first note about all the configs I tried). So it seems too stupid to be true, but it can well be that this very first one I tried (and which was not rejected right away) is the best there is.

 

Two key elements you could focus on:

1. Far more metal highs (less refined which can be a good thing) and of which my partner here tells me it is "less sharp";

2. Unheard bass like the electric bass player plays through his own dedicated and self-chosen gear on stage (amp + speaker).

 

 

Please try this out and let me know, because it could be time to change the "consensus" config the Lush^2 is shipping with all this time (for quite long by now).

Thanks !

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

and of which my partner here tells me

 

This same partner I told this story to ...

 

On 3/5/2019 at 7:14 AM, ray-dude said:

The Lush^2 must be crazy popular!

 

Mine (used) got delivered today, but this guy snagged it off my porch

 

... responded exactly the same as I myself in my mind: shouldn't we send this guy one for free. Yes, we are crazy, but this is known by now, so we can add some to it, right ?

So @ray-dude, are you already good with this ? If not, yesterday we shipped one of 100cm to AudioBacon for review. I don't know whether Jay of AudioBacon is a registered user here, but I am sure he will be happy to send it to you instead of returning it to us in Holland when he is finished with it (which should be in 3 weeks or so).

 

Let me know ...

Peter

[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!"

 

[ray-dude]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

This same partner I told this story to ...

 

 

... responded exactly the same as I myself in my mind: shouldn't we send this guy one for free. Yes, we are crazy, but this is known by now, so we can add some to it, right ?

So @ray-dude, are you already good with this ? If not, yesterday we shipped one of 100cm to AudioBacon for review. I don't know whether Jay of AudioBacon is a registered user here, but I am sure he will be happy to send it to you instead of returning it to us in Holland when he is finished with it (which should be in 3 weeks or so).

 

Let me know ...

Peter

 

Peter that is so amazingly thoughtful of you to offer!  I meant what I said about being most sad about not being able to hear the unit.  I ordered a new Lush^2 right after the theft happened and it arrived (at my office this time!) yesterday.  I've been enjoying it all day today, and looking forward to trying some of the configurations mentioned here.

 

Very very gracious of you to offer, but I would hate for this guy to be impacting you.  I have filed a claim with my credit card company for the theft, so I am hopeful it will be covered.

 

Very much looking forward to what Jay has to say about the cable!

 

 

[Confused]

23 hours ago, PeterSt said:

1. Far more metal highs (less refined which can be a good thing) and of which my partner here tells me it is "less sharp";

More metal, less refined and less sharp?  This one is messing with my head! 🙂

 

To explain, personally, I am a little sensitive to harsh treble, or perhaps more accurately harsh presence range.  So the above comment was of particular interest to me, I am just not sure how to interpret it?

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, Confused said:

On 3/9/2019 at 1:28 PM, PeterSt said:

 

More metal, less refined and less sharp?  This one is messing with my head! 🙂

 

Justified ...

 

If too much frequency is implied (break your brains on that one again), the sound gets more white than intended (than reality). For myself I could try to explain the "more sharp" because of that as a modulated noise on to a higher frequency which frequency with that is too much emphasized. Next think that all what is high frequency could be interpreted as more white than a lower frequency (not calling that more brown, but more dark).

 

More metal emerges when the individual "spikes" a cymbal implies (for frequency) are better audible. The metal receives color instead of a white smear (or gray smear which is even worse).

 

What is comes down to is a better following of transients, making the "dips vs peaks" in a frequency better audible (also louder), that implying a mere on/off sound like a synthesizer could do that for real. This can more generally be described as high frequency "holes" which you may perceive and which for me (and the XXHighEnd community) are known from Windows 10 Build 10074. Those holes are almost literally audible, but the sound gets more palpable because of it. Say that the general (the RMS) "smearing" level of higher frequency drops, which was unreal to begin with (and implied by noise).

 

It is okay if you can't get a hoot of what I am talking about, but if you only perceive differences per such configuration differences, you could try to map this onto what you perceive of the sound.

 

I am quite confident that the "less sharp" in this regard is at least partly a brain thing. The "always to white" in the end is tiring. 

Btw, "less sharp" is not really an audio(phile) expression. But it would be in the fatigue realm.

 

[PeterSt]

PS: The "less refined" seems a negative and to some extent it is. But elsewhere I described this setting - but in the context of mentioned processor - as better for Rock. So Yes, IMO Rock can be represented as too refined and then it doesn't work well. Rock must slam to some degree and not be pussy. 

[Confused]

Thanks Peter, all clear now!

[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.

[simonp]

On 3/9/2019 at 1:28 PM, PeterSt said:

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

For me its the second time trying this. However I like the default very much this new way of te lush pinout was very atractive. A richer sound stronger and more body without loss of detail. After a few days I switched back to the default. Just to be shure. Now a few week later I changed again. I like this PNF more, still the same conclusions,  a richer sound without the loss of focus or depth.