Lush^2 - Share your configuration experiences

[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

[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

[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.

[lmitche]

2 hours ago, RickyV said:

 

Have you tried JSSG360 on that antenna coax too?

No

[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.

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, luisma said:

do you keep your DAC and source ON at all times?  

Hi Luisma,

 

Good questions.

 

Yes, I leave the entire digital chain powered on at all times including the DAC.

 

And no, the lush cable has not gone back to sounding terrible since originally configured. I have no idea about the underlying physical mechanism and why it took time to stabilize.

[lmitche]

4 hours ago, kurb1980 said:

I have done it again this configuration is crazy atmosphere the tone and air is outrageous!

Yes the jumper caps need to be in this configuration in order to experience the air, depth, and timbre.

Looks like we have come 360 degrees with this familiar configuration.

[lmitche]

After trying Kurb's latest JSSG360 deep bass was missing. This fixed it:

 

A:.1WYR2X B:.1WYR2X

 

I'm done for now. Thanks Kurb!

 

Larry

[lmitche]

13 minutes ago, tims said:

Am I correct in thinking these are two sets of jumpers (1 & 2) that are oriented at right angles to the rest of the wires?

Tims,

 

Yes, you are correct! Mine are sticking out of opposite sides if the connector. (Which makes me realize we have no notation for jumper orientation).

 

UGH!!!

 

Larry

 

[lmitche]

39 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Which makes me realize we have no notation for jumper orientation

How about this?

 

A:.1WYR2X B:.1WYR2X where underline is below the comb and strikethrough above.

[lmitche]

6 minutes ago, oilpaint said:

And what does ‘X’ designate?

Nothing on that pin, in other words a bare pin.

[lmitche]

4 hours ago, rickca said:

manana ... endlessly

Whats the word used when Manana would be too soon?

[lmitche]

39 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

This is what I wrote about TANF (A: xWYxxx, B: xWYRxx) after two days:

 

I immediately sense a beautiful piano. The ways this sings is present in all similar sounds. Yes, I am sure this digs out beautiful nuances with the emphasis to “beautiful”.

 

 

This is indeed the occurring matter.

 

Very very well done, and again a Great Thanks, @TheAttorney!

 

 

 

 

 

I am hearing the same on my system with TANF.  With pianos and acoustic guitars, it's like one can finally hear the wood in the soundboards of both of these instruments. Otherwise, it's not a gigantic change from jssg360 squared. Nevertheless I'm keeping TANF in place.

 

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?

 

@TheAttorneyMany thanks for this innovation!

 

 

 

 

[lmitche]

46 minutes ago, TheAttorney said:

 

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.

Hi TA,

 

Do you use a USB isolation device like an ISO Regen? If so, have you configured both cables to TANF?

 

In my case a Lush 2 in TANF into the ISO Regen and the original Lush cable into the DAC with DIY shielding configured as default, sounds terrific.

[lmitche]

38 minutes ago, TheAttorney said:

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.

 

Your feedback makes me feel happy that I don't have a second Lush2. My life is simpler.

[lmitche]

31 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Your feedback makes me feel happy that I don't have a second Lush2. My life is simpler.

And trust me when I say there are lots of other puzzles here.

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, TheAttorney said:

I suggest you try JSSG360cubed (WYR  WYR, all colours connected together other than black) for more bass and warmth.

I second that suggestion. Even better try adding another (4th) layer of shielding with the ends tied to the other three.

 

Yesterday a MuMetal braid was added to my .4 meter Lush 2 cable. It was initially configured as two jssg360s. That was an improvement, but something was missing. Tying all 4 ends together fixed that, and the results is more image weight and clarity across the spectrum.

 

[lmitche]

Alice,

 

No, not abandoned, it just that this whole thread is about "more tried and tested jumper settings that everyone seems to like. "

 

It is tough to know what else to say.

[lmitche]

5 hours ago, matthias said:

 

This USB cable is a cable for masochists.

 

Matt

Actually, through all the changes, this has been a terrific sounding cable.  It was fun to experiment with various configurations and to share those with others. The thread ended in a great place, and I am delighted with the results.

 

From my limited experience, I can say this is the best USB cable I have owned, also the most social, even it is a bit of a chameleon.

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, mtcs said:

Larry,

 

After lots of experience with Lush^2, which configuration are you using? Thanks.

 

Mark

 

 

Hi Mark,

 

I have the black wires disconnected on both ends, with the other three connected at the bridge. I then added another layer of shielding and connected that to the others at both ends.

 

It sounds great.

[lmitche]

On 6/26/2020 at 9:21 PM, edwardsean said:

Hi. I'm looking at different USB cables. Right now I have: Curious USB > IsoRegen > USPCB > tx-USBUltra > SynRes > DAVE.

 

My SynRes is just an entry Core model. It actually sounds very, well, "lush," but it's too warm, lacking clarity and resolution. 

 

I wasn't going to look at Lush USB, because it seemed like more of the same. However, then I found this thread. I'm wondering if with Lush 2 and these configuration options, I might be able to attain something both lush and clear. 

 

Is this possible with Lush2

I have a rich and clear signal using the Lush2 cable here. It's configured in the JSSD360^3 configuration described above. Many other variations are possible.