Lush^2 - Share your configuration experiences

[PeterSt]

13 hours ago, austinpop said:

15 hours ago, lwr said:

What is the difference between the JSSG360 and the JSSG360 cubed connections?

 

Please do not make us do searches, then spoon feed you. Go to the search box, and search:

 

Maybe that is not 100% fair.  For example, I myself also did not know what the "cubed" version is supposed to be or add or where that terminology suddenly came from. But for me (and you of course) things are a tad more easy to grasp.

Let me take this as the opportunity to elaborate on something which I did not see pass by, and possibly was even interpreted wrongly. And if I myself now am on the wrong track, please correct me:

 

The JSSG360 setup for USB and as how it was made for the Lush^1 (original Lush cable), is inherently different from the Lush^2 because the inner shield is fixed hence always connected. Only the 2nd and 3rd shield could (can) be played/configured with (with self-constructed connection means). Normally, however, the JSSG360 setup as originally created by @lmitche/Larry consists of the 2nd and 3rd shield connected to each other at both ends, and them *not* being connected to the inner/1st shield. For this part, the 2nd and 3rd shield, and that part only, we could call it "cubed". Not that I ever saw that talk happening, but with the knowledge of today and the current terminology, it would be so. And here the lot starts to be confused, because I am fairly sure that people talk "cubed" already in the realm of the Lush^1 and the JSSG360 application. Anyway, we should not do that, because it is too confusing and electrically too different from what we do today with the Lush^2 and "cubed".

 

The "cubed" version as we speak of it since a few weeks that I can see, can only be about the Lush^2 and all the shields

a. connected to each other

b. not connected to the connectors at both ends (do not connect the Black wire).

 

And thus the most important part of this is: with the Lush^1 this can not be accomplished because the inner shield always connects to the connectors (at both ends).

 

The "cubed" connection is special, not because the shields connect to each other as they do, but is merely crucial because the shield(s) does not connect-through to the devices at either end. This is *not* normal, is not with "EE" consensus anywhere that I know of (data from over 10 years back, I must admit) but now seems to do something that is highly beneficial. Thus, instead of the unjustified situation that no shield connects to either (device) end, it now turns out for the better, for at least the Lush cable (remember, inside the Lush^2 is the original Lush with the difference that the normally connected shield (both ends) is now disconnected and brought outside for you to connect or let float (the Black wire)).

 

When indeed this brings "specialty", still quite some combinations are possible that do not connect-through the shield at both ends.

 

On 7/18/2019 at 6:55 PM, Abtr said:

155 configurations have no ground continuation.

 

Abtr seems to be good at this, and I did not check it. Whether these all are to be called "cubed" ... I don't think so. But have it the same at both ends, may be called for that justification (I am sure my English fails on me here). Also, it seems to me that at least two shields must be involved (connected to each other) to call it "cubed" as such.

 

I suppose that tonight finally I am going to listen to the "full cube" myself.

 

Peter

[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!

[lmitche]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Maybe that is not 100% fair.  For example, I myself also did not know what the "cubed" version is supposed to be or add or where that terminology suddenly came from. But for me (and you of course) things are a tad more easy to grasp.

Let me take this as the opportunity to elaborate on something which I did not see pass by, and possibly was even interpreted wrongly. And if I myself now am on the wrong track, please correct me:

 

The JSSG360 setup for USB and as how it was made for the Lush^1 (original Lush cable), is inherently different from the Lush^2 because the inner shield is fixed hence always connected. Only the 2nd and 3rd shield could (can) be played/configured with (with self-constructed connection means). Normally, however, the JSSG360 setup as originally created by @lmitche/Larry consists of the 2nd and 3rd shield connected to each other at both ends, and them *not* being connected to the inner/1st shield. For this part, the 2nd and 3rd shield, and that part only, we could call it "cubed". Not that I ever saw that talk happening, but with the knowledge of today and the current terminology, it would be so. And here the lot starts to be confused, because I am fairly sure that people talk "cubed" already in the realm of the Lush^1 and the JSSG360 application. Anyway, we should not do that, because it is too confusing and electrically too different from what we do today with the Lush^2 and "cubed".

 

The "cubed" version as we speak of it since a few weeks that I can see, can only be about the Lush^2 and all the shields

a. connected to each other

b. not connected to the connectors at both ends (do not connect the Black wire).

 

And thus the most important part of this is: with the Lush^1 this can not be accomplished because the inner shield always connects to the connectors (at both ends).

 

The "cubed" connection is special, not because the shields connect to each other as they do, but is merely crucial because the shield(s) does not connect-through to the devices at either end. This is *not* normal, is not with "EE" consensus anywhere that I know of (data from over 10 years back, I must admit) but now seems to do something that is highly beneficial. Thus, instead of the unjustified situation that no shield connects to either (device) end, it now turns out for the better, for at least the Lush cable (remember, inside the Lush^2 is the original Lush with the difference that the normally connected shield (both ends) is now disconnected and brought outside for you to connect or let float (the Black wire)).

 

When indeed this brings "specialty", still quite some combinations are possible that do not connect-through the shield at both ends.

 

 

Abtr seems to be good at this, and I did not check it. Whether these all are to be called "cubed" ... I don't think so. But have it the same at both ends, may be called for that justification (I am sure my English fails on me here). Also, it seems to me that at least two shields must be involved (connected to each other) to call it "cubed" as such.

 

I suppose that tonight finally I am going to listen to the "full cube" myself.

 

Peter

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain the JSSG360 history. I would only add a small twist to simplify things, so I share this below.

 

The original JSSG360 design was to add two external shields to any cable, of any type, with the two shields connected at the two end points, but not connected to anything else. It was a simple extension of John Swensons original JSSG design. This was successfully applied to DC cables, ethernet cables, standard USB cables, and your Lush ^1 cable. Today one can buy a JSSG360 cable from multiple vendors.

 

The JSSG360 cubed design simply adds a third layer of shielding and could be used, and I guess should be tried, on any type of cable.

 

You are of course right, Kurb's design with the Lush^2 both adds a third layer of shielding , making it JSSG360cubed, and disconnects the black drain wire. The second part is not captured by the JSSG360cubed label.

 

Perhaps it should be called JSSG360cubedsansdrain or JSSG360cubedzonderdrain? LOL!

 

Best regards,

 

Larry

[PeterSt]

33 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Perhaps it should be called JSSG360cubedsansdrain or JSSG360cubedzonderdrain? LOL!

 

haha

 

34 minutes ago, lmitche said:

The original JSSG360 design was to add two external shields to any cable, of any type, with the two shields connected at the two end points, but not connected to anything else.

 

But of course and indeed. IIRC the Lush/USB wasn't even the first where the JSSG was applied to. JSSG360 was the first for USB/Lush ? I forgot (or never knew) ...

[PeterSt]

36 minutes ago, lmitche said:

While we are at it, is there a simple way to cut the drain wire of the original Lush^1 cable?

 

Please don't attempt that. It will destroy the internal working of the cable, therefore will not be comparable among each other's cables, plus it may never sound good again.

Also, as far as I remember, that (for the Lush^1) is not done by drain wire but with the shield directly.

Lastly, it may not even work (this is quite similar (but opposite) to all still working with the Lush^2-Cubed without any shield connected BUT which may well be because of the way the shields have been set up - I could add to that that this can not be the same for any aftermath JSSG360 cable which already relates to the coverage and possibly even to the isolation (dielectric) we very carefully make the exact same for each Lush^2).

 

It is wondrous already that we perceive the same results for the same configurations; if we delicately (like we produce all equally) go about with it all, we keep on being able to compare and learn from each other's experiences. In my opinion this is golden. Of course this is what I started the thread for, but I never could have guessed it would really work out like this.

 

Regards and thanks,

Peter

[lmitche]

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

JSSG360 was the first for USB/Lush ?

Actually, the JSSG360 treatment was applied to a DC cable first, and then I realized that a DC cable is embedded into a USB cable, so I tried it on a USB cable next. I can't remember if the Lush or a stock Startech cable was done first. In either case the impact was similar.

[lmitche]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Please don't attempt that. It will destroy the internal working of the cable, therefore will not be comparable among each other's cables, plus it may never sound good again.

Also, as far as I remember, that (for the Lush^1) is not done by drain wire but with the shield directly.

Lastly, it may not even work (this is quite similar (but opposite) to all still working with the Lush^2-Cubed without any shield connected BUT which may well be because of the way the shields have been set up - I could add to that that this can not be the same for any aftermath JSSG360 cable which already relates to the coverage and possibly even to the isolation (dielectric) we very carefully make the exact same for each Lush^2).

 

It is wondrous already that we perceive the same results for the same configurations; if we delicately (like we produce all equally) go about with it all, we keep on being able to compare and learn from each other's experiences. In my opinion this is golden. Of course this is what I started the thread for, but I never could have guessed it would really work out like this.

 

Regards and thanks,

Peter

Ok, I'll leave it alone.

 

Actually I'll add a third layer of shielding making it A:.BWYR12 B:.BWYR12 as this is the closest I can get without hacking..

 

Larry

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, TheAttorney said:

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!

 

Nobody should get close to any WiFi source for an audio playing PC. It is up to you - but if you only know that this is measure at the output of a DAC with the WiFi transmitting 50cm / say 2ft way from in this case a PS3 Play Station :

 

 

 

Of course people may argue that something like 100uV on base noise of 20uV (peak) is inaudible, but that is not really how I personally think.

 

Btw, regarding the date I took these shots, this can not be related to USB (I used an other interface back then). But I don't think this is "interface" related at all (although I have no proof for that).

 

Of course, on dedicated analysis devices we can measure the WiFi all over in the room from various other sources, but right next to the source itself it is way more strong and is captured (by whatever it was in this case, but anyway put (through) to the outputs).

My WiFi router (access point) is at 6-7 meters distance, and I don't see anything of that in the outputs. Do notice that the PS3 in this case was receiving data from that same router which latter thus is invisible in the outputs (the spikes you see should be aknowledgements etc. from the PS3).

 

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

[RickyV]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

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

 

Oops, there are quite a number of people using 5ghz wifi in there audio pc for galvanic separation purposes. Not me.

[lmitche]

27 minutes ago, RickyV said:

 

Oops, there are quite a number of people using 5ghz wifi in there audio pc for galvanic separation purposes. Not me.

5ghz works great here with 10 foot of coax moving the antenna away from the endpoint and DAC.

[RickyV]

45 minutes ago, lmitche said:

5ghz works great here with 10 foot of coax moving the antenna away from the endpoint and DAC.

 

Have you tried JSSG360 on that antenna coax too?

[lmitche]

2 hours ago, RickyV said:

 

Have you tried JSSG360 on that antenna coax too?

No

[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 🙂.

 

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, TheAttorney said:

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.

Well said. I am in complete agreement.

 

It should be said that 5GHz wifi is best by far. Having a 2.4 GHz radio nearby diminishes SQ and the impact is easy to hear. I use a wifi card in the NUC and a Linksys re9000 extender (with 2 5GHz radios, one for the NUC and the other for internet backhaul) attached to the server to create a music system only network.

 

I expect to stick with 5GHz wifi until the EtherRegen arrives. My expectation is that the EtherRegen blows away the WiFi network.

[Doak]

4 hours ago, TheAttorney said:

I'm on a DTS mission (Ditch The Spaghetti).

Totally with you here.

I am quite happy with the sound I am getting with the Lush^2 sans 'boxes."

I may have lost a bit of something, though what I am hearing is that I have also gained something.

[JanRSmit]

5 hours ago, lmitche said:

Well said. I am in complete agreement.

 

It should be said that 5GHz wifi is best by far. Having a 2.4 GHz radio nearby diminishes SQ and the impact is easy to hear. I use a wifi card in the NUC and a Linksys re9000 extender (with 2 5GHz radios, one for the NUC and the other for internet backhaul) attached to the server to create a music system only network.

 

I expect to stick with 5GHz wifi until the EtherRegen arrives. My expectation is that the EtherRegen blows away the WiFi network.

Will not even try wifi. Too congested "space" where i live. Have an sftp cable from root router to shielded wall box . Then a 0.5m utp to my nuc.

Did need to connect the rootrouter (ubiquity) case to the safety earth to get rid of signal pollution. Was quite audible.

Simple and effective.

 

Nuc with an sbooster power supply. Pondering on which power supply to buy for my chord qutest. Also will go for a lush^2 USB from Nuc to qutest. 

 

Regarding mains power i already have a separate group, now i am in process of applying Bill Whitlock's primer on grounding for a set of AC outlets to serve my equipment. 

 

Together helps in DTS. 😎

 

 

 

 

 

[Abtr]

On 7/22/2019 at 8:51 AM, PeterSt said:

...

Abtr seems to be good at this, and I did not check it. Whether these all are to be called "cubed" ... I don't think so. But have it the same at both ends, may be called for that justification (I am sure my English fails on me here). Also, it seems to me that at least two shields must be involved (connected to each other) to call it "cubed" as such.

...

Of the 225 possible configurations for Lush^2 there are only 5 configurations with the same shield connections at both ends and without a shield to ground continuation:
  
W-Y-R and W-Y-R (JSSG360^3)
W-Y and W-Y (JSSG360)
W-R and W-R (JSSG360)
Y-R and Y-R (JSSG360)
0 and 0 (no shields connected)

 

The config at the bottom of the list may, as you say, not be called "cubed" (or even JSSG360) because no two shields are connected on both ends. The other configs can be called JSSG360 and only the top configuration can be called JSSG360 cubed.

[Abtr]

BTW, there are 6 non-symmetrical Lush^2 configurations with 2 shields connected at both ends and no shield to ground continuation, which may be called JSSG360^2.5 :

 

A: W-Y-R and B: W-Y
A: W-Y-R and B: W-R
A: W-Y-R and B: Y-R
A: W-Y and B: W-Y-R
A: W-R and B: W-Y-R

A: Y-R and B: W-Y-R

[RickyV]

16 minutes ago, Abtr said:

BTW, there are 6 non-symmetrical Lush^2 configurations with 2 shields connected at both ends and no shield to ground continuation, which may be called JSSG360^2.5 :

 

A: W-Y-R and B: W-Y
A: W-Y-R and B: W-R
A: W-Y-R and B: Y-R
A: W-Y and B: W-Y-R
A: W-R and B: W-Y-R

A: Y-R and B: W-Y-R

 

Nice but how do they sound?

[frederick184]

OK, like @lmitche I didn't leave the latest config in place long enough.  I decided to try again, and lo and behold it is better than A: B-W-Y B: B-W-Y.  It did take a while to show itself.

 

Seems much more balanced.  The previous config I tried had more presence, and pushed vocals especially forward in the mix.  This latest config brings more of the 3D layered sound with an impressive depth.  

 

Colin

[Superdad]

3 hours ago, frederick184 said:

OK, like @lmitche I didn't leave the latest config in place long enough.  I decided to try again, and lo and behold it is better than A: B-W-Y B: B-W-Y.  It did take a while to show itself.

 

Hi Colin:  

So which config are you liking now?

And when was A: B-W-Y, B: B-W-Y discussed?  I thought @kurb1980's "Cubed" config was A: W-Y-R, B: W-Y-R.  So hard to keep up with you guys! 

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

 

Hi Colin:  

So which config are you liking now?

And when was A: B-W-Y, B: B-W-Y discussed?  I thought @kurb1980's "Cubed" config was A: W-Y-R, B: W-Y-R.  So hard to keep up with you guys! 

 

Alex,

 

A: B-W-Y, B: B-W-Y was @kurb1980 previous favorite, which several of us tried and liked.

 

Since he couldn't "kurb" his enthusiasm, he continued to experiment, identifying A: W-Y-R, B: W-Y-R as his new favorite. I agree with him, I like this config better too.  So I said bye-bye to BWY-BWY   and am now enjoying A: W-Y-R, B: W-Y-R.

[frederick184]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

 

Hi Colin:  

So which config are you liking now?

And when was A: B-W-Y, B: B-W-Y discussed?  I thought @kurb1980's "Cubed" config was A: W-Y-R, B: W-Y-R.  So hard to keep up with you guys! 

Hi Alex,

 

A: B-W-Y B: B-W-Y was Kurb1980’s previous config a couple pages back before JSSG360 cubed came along.  I liked that one better at the time but after reading Larry’s post that he hadn’t given it enough time in place, I gave it another shot and sure enough, it was better.  

 

Colin

 

 

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

A: B-W-Y, B: B-W-Y was @kurb1980 previous favorite, which several of us tried and liked.

 

Since he couldn't "kurb" his enthusiasm, he continued to experiment, identifying A: W-Y-R, B: W-Y-R as his new favorite. I agree with him, I like this config better too.  So I said bye-bye to BWY-BWY   and am now enjoying A: W-Y-R, B: W-Y-R.

 

1 hour ago, frederick184 said:

A: B-W-Y B: B-W-Y was Kurb1980’s previous config a couple pages back before JSSG360 cubed came along.  I liked that one better at the time but after reading Larry’s post that he hadn’t given it enough time in place, I gave it another shot and sure enough, it was better.  

 

Thanks to you both.  So I guess I got Kurb1980's config wrong and what I quoted as his is actually the latest one you are enamored with.  That's good because that it what I had written down on a Post-It to try next.  A: W-Y-R, B: W-Y-R. 

[luisma]

On 7/19/2019 at 8:04 AM, lmitche said:

Within 5 to 10 minutes, it seemed like something equalized and suddenly it sounded terrific.

Hi Larry, With your level of experience my question might sound simplistic, do you keep your DAC and source ON at all times? 

 

On 7/19/2019 at 8:04 AM, lmitche said:

I should say that after first making the change to jssg360cubed the system sounded terrible. Within 5 to 10 minutes

It never went back to sound terrible? could it be there is a delay for the 3 shields to "charge" (I'm smiling here myself thinking on Star Strek's Enterprise shields charging and how silly this comment may sound). 

 

Since the three shields are floating potentially charges could be induced and make it "active" and sound better?

 

Just very curious about your experience.