Lush^2 - Share your configuration experiences

[str-1]

@PeterStHi Peter.  In rearranging my music system I managed to disconnect some of the connections on my Lush^2.  I’ve reconnected in the way I think they were for the default A: B-W-Y-R, B: B-W-R.  Can you tell me if I’ve put things back correctly.  Thanks.

 

 

[PeterSt]

Hi, @str-1, yes, this is how we ship the Lush^2.

[John Haines]

OK, I had not realised that the cable is still sent out as I believe I received mine. 
There of course has been the ‘PNF’, & I guess I supposed that this would now be what is sent out. 
Additionally, there have been quite a few other configurations that seem to have been very highly regarded by quite a few owners of the Lush^2.
In fact,  I have been rather confused as to the exact physical configuration of some of these suggested configurations, particularly that there has been different suggestions as to the ‘naming’ of configurations. 
IS IT POSSIBLE that the configurations that have been accepted as extremely good, be listed in a group, & that if possible, ‘PICTURES’ be made available. 
I must admit that my rapidly feeble mind has difficulty in being confident in trying any of these new configurations that are being considered as overall excellent. Better than what is delivered?😉

Regards to you all. 

[PeterSt]

John, to me, myself and I, that configuration which is still shipped (for more than a year by now !) is the only one which does not show "anomalies" at the very end. All of the others (also my own) turn out to be gadgets, for me. They may show more bass, but in the end all turns out to be too bassy. They may show more fresh highs, but in the end it is too lean. A more wide sound stage ? in the end it is too flat. Etc. etc. etc.

[John Haines]

Hi Peter, much appreciate your response. 
I have looked at all the input as to different configurations as they have come forward, & it is most ‘reassuring’ to hear the response  from your holy trinity of, ”me, myself and I”.
It was rather difficult to really get a ’handle’ on the true long term view of these ‘different’ configurations. 
Your memory is obviously excellent, so just to confirm, mine would have been sent in what is still the current configuration? 
Incidently, that being what is termed to be the ‘PNF’?
BTW, having tried quiet a number of cables, nothing gets even close to the overall ‘balance, beauty, magic’ of the Lush^2. 

Such included cables since receiving the Lush^2. (We just have to ‘try’ do we not, ‘just to be sure’).
I did get ‘intrigued’ by some of the different Lush^2 configurations, (as to what was reported) but always had in mind that perhaps despite what was reported, that there was a ‘catch’ somewhere as to the situation for overall ‘balance’ re long term listening. 
Many thanks. 

[PeterSt]

Dear John,

 

Yes, your Lush^2 was shipped to you in this still (for me) best configuration.

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

You name that one yourself in your last email from October 2018.

 

PNF is a name given by other forum members, and stands for "Peter's New Finding". Google brings me to the page in this thread which mentions it :

 

On 8/18/2018 at 11:15 AM, PeterSt said:

Then ... since March 2019 people tend to like my new finding, commonly known now as "PNF" (Peter's New Finding). This is

A:B-W & Y-R, B:B-W. You see this below.

 

 

(don't be confused by the 8/18/2018, because that is the date of the first post in this thread, and the first post can be edited by its creator).

My own description of this one (somewhere in August 2018) :

 

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.

 

February 26, 2019, I used the "PNF" again, but merely to solve a for me not the best sound with a new processor I tried. My description:

 

I used it for the 12/24 processor which otherwise would not sound right at all. And now ? the very best !!!

 

June 14, 2019, I changed for the last time, and back to the one "with consensus" (the one still shipped).

After this, however, people started to tweak with the jumpers, and this came from that for myself:

 

This could be the first time that all the pins were covered with pins (or wires). I mean, I was always careless and lost a jumper – and I did not care much. BUT this alters the SQ. Say that a normally assembled jumper would be denoted by a j and a 90 degree twisted one with h (half-assembled), then this comprises this config :
A: B-W-Y-R-j-j, B: B-W-R-j-j-h
(I may change this notation as others work on it too).
The sound of this is a bit of “ouch” but I still managed for 3 weeks (see date below). Cymbals are very present but also very white. Not hurting, but very profound, giving the lot a clear character. It surely does not work for all music, but at least for hard-rock (like Deep Purple, J.Geils band) it worked out quite well (and my Ambient always works out).

Keep in mind : the real change in this by now most-often used setting, is that all pins supplied with jumpers.

 

I just looked what I currently use, and it is:

A: B-W-Y-R-x-x, B: B-W-R-x-j-j

Don't ask me the merit of this, because I don't recall making it like that and I didn't register it either. I must like the sound of it, because this must be so for months by now ...

 

Regards,

Peter

 

[mtcs]

Hi, all. I recently got a Lush^2 and it sounded fantastic the few times I'v e gotten it to work. It seems to have a hard time completing the USB handshake. My system is UltraRendu =>Lush^2=>Iso Regen=>AURALiC Vega. My Nordost USB cable works consistently but not the Lush^2. I was wondering if any has successfully used the Lush^2 from a UR to a Vega and, if so, what configuration you are using?

 

Thanks.

[Superdad]

4 hours ago, mtcs said:

My system is UltraRendu =>Lush^2=>Iso Regen=>AURALiC Vega. My Nordost USB cable works consistently but not the Lush^2.

 

Try putting the Lush^2 on the output side of the ISO REGEN—between it and the DAC—instead of before it. 

The Silanna galvanic isolator chip at the input of the ISO REGEN is not always tolerant of out-of-spec USB cables at its input. The ISO REGEN’s output is happy to drive any cable though.  

 

I use and greatly enjoy the Lush^2 in my system. And it is about the only cable that I prefer over our own USPCB A>B Adapter as the connection to the DAC after the ISO REGEN. 

So I suggest you turn the USPCB around, using it to position the ISO REGEN at the output of you ultraRendu—and then run from the ISO REGEN to your Vega DAC with the Lush^2.

I bet it will work and sound great for you! 

[elcorso]

12 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I just looked what I currently use, and it is:

A: B-W-Y-R-x-x, B: B-W-R-x-j-j

Don't ask me the merit of this, because I don't recall making it like that and I didn't register it either. I must like the sound of it, because this must be so for months by now ...

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

Just to confirm since I'm color blind and a very bad photographer:

 

 

Thanks,

 

Roch

[PeterSt]

Hey Roch,

 

Yes, that looks all right. But regarding what you quoted from my text, you would be having;

 

A: B-W-Y-R-h-h, B: B-W-R-h-j-j

(h = jumper sideways, j - jumper from pin to next pin).

 

Regards,

Peter

[tipunch]

On 23 novembre 2019 at 10:22 AM, PeterSt said:

John, to me, myself and I, that configuration which is still shipped (for more than a year by now !) is the only one which does not show "anomalies" at the very end. All of the others (also my own) turn out to be gadgets, for me. They may show more bass, but in the end all turns out to be too bassy. They may show more fresh highs, but in the end it is too lean. A more wide sound stage ? in the end it is too flat. Etc. etc. etc.

Hello,

Me too, it's the most balanced configuration. I have tried the other configurations and it is true that either something is missing or something is too much in the spotlight. I thank in passing all the people who found and posted "good" configurations!
Although I can't live without the Lush^2 anymore, I still find it a little too bloated at the bottom of the spectrum. Most of the time it's very lovely, but sometimes a little awkward.

I will try Alex's proposed configuration to put the USPCB back in place of my Lush^1:
Mac Mini => USPCB => IsoRegen => Lush^2 => DAC Terminator

Thanks to all

Raphaël

[mtcs]

On 11/23/2019 at 3:13 PM, Superdad said:

 

Try putting the Lush^2 on the output side of the ISO REGEN—between it and the DAC—instead of before it. 

The Silanna galvanic isolator chip at the input of the ISO REGEN is not always tolerant of out-of-spec USB cables at its input. The ISO REGEN’s output is happy to drive any cable though.  

 

I use and greatly enjoy the Lush^2 in my system. And it is about the only cable that I prefer over our own USPCB A>B Adapter as the connection to the DAC after the ISO REGEN. 

So I suggest you turn the USPCB around, using it to position the ISO REGEN at the output of you ultraRendu—and then run from the ISO REGEN to your Vega DAC with the Lush^2.

I bet it will work and sound great for you! 

 

Worked like a charm. Alex, you're brilliant! I'm  listening to Till Bronner/Nightfall and it never sounded this good before. Now  can't wait for an etheregen.

[elcorso]

20 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Hey Roch,

 

Yes, that looks all right. But regarding what you quoted from my text, you would be having;

 

A: B-W-Y-R-h-h, B: B-W-R-h-j-j

(h = jumper sideways, j - jumper from pin to next pin).

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Thanks Peter,

 

This is the way I did it.  Maybe no clear enough from my picture.

 

Kind regards,

 

Roch

[ray-dude]

On 10/21/2019 at 12:18 AM, ray-dude said:

JSSG360x2s       A: 0-1-2, 3-4       B: 0-1-2, 3-4 (favorite)

So what happens if the inner JSSG360 pair is connected to USB ground on both sides, and the 2nd JSSG360 pair is floating?  This is a winner!  Great detail, less harshness than 360x2 with the more challenging tracks.  This is currently my new favorite.

 

An update on the photo Lush^3 experiment.  After 3 weeks with the above config, I removed the extra 4th shield layer and went back to JSGG360^3 (A: 1-2-3        B: 1-2-3).  While I loved the space and detail, it was came at the cost of some hyper reality on some recordings that I just couldn't adjust to.  When I went back to JSSG360^3 to compare after my ear had completely adjusted to JSSG360x2s, it was like going back to an old friend: less space and detail, but more comfortable and relaxed listening across more recordings.

 

I still have no hypothesis for what is happening with 3 vs 4 layers.  Curious to hear what others think after having had the 4th shield layer in their systems

 

Ray

 

 

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, ray-dude said:

I removed the extra 4th shield layer and went back to JSGG360^3 (A: 1-2-3        B: 1-2-3).  While I loved the space and detail, it was came at the cost of some hyper reality on some recordings that I just couldn't adjust to.

 

2 hours ago, ray-dude said:

I still have no hypothesis for what is happening with 3 vs 4 layers.

 

Ray, I'm afraid this is too much of apples and oranges, because look at my description of the "cubed" configuration:

 

August 2, 2019 – It wasn’t registered, but for the past 10 days or so I tried the “cubed” version (from kurb1980), but in the end that does not satisfy. It is too loud and too messy (when loud). The cubed version would be :
A:W-Y-R, B:W-Y-R (no shields connected to the outside).
And so … back to the one with consensus again. (see above).

 

So to me, with what you compared, this is unrelated to a 4th shield per se, because the one with the 3 layers would be a config I'd reject.

But I'll have one made with a 4th layer soon. I suppose I won't be able to make real sense out of it, but we'll see.

[robocop]

Have to say I’m back at shipped config. I agree with Peter, Tanf too trebly and the other JSG cubed is to much bass.  

[FileMakerDev]

EtherRegen > AQ Cinnamon > ultraRendu > Lush^2 > ISO-Regen > Lush^2 > Lampizator Big 7

 

I'm still happily anjoying TANF on both my L^2s after many months... however, based on some of the recent comments here, I thought it might be time to re-evaluate so I tried four variations over the last 24 hours, in this sequence:

 

A. Default config on both L^2s

B. TANF on the first, Default on the 2nd

C. Default on the first, TANF on the 2nd

D. TANF on both

 

The results: A sounded the most "canned" and least alive, B sounded better, C sounded better than B, and D was best of all, i.e., the most alive and convincing. Of course this was a matter of degree, and a year ago, I'd have been thrilled with any of the above. But having now been spoiled, my clear, unambiguous preference is for D.

 

For example, the ECM album BLACK ICE by the Wolfert Brederode Trio opens with a cymbal splash. C sounds great, but only on D do I get goosebumps from it... the high-end is wide open, and the dynamics are amazing. I could cite many other examples, e.g., on the intro to "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat" on Jeff Beck's WIRED album, only D has the ideal combination of "bite" and "sweetness".

 

[robocop]

Yes I'm retrying default config then will try Tanf again. I do concur with this statement though from tipunch over this last weekend I was surprised how much bass I still have after changing from JS cubed.

Quote

 I still find it a little too bloated at the bottom of the spectrum

 

[TheAttorney]

On 12/2/2019 at 12:52 AM, FileMakerDev said:

..... Lush^2 > ISO-Regen > Lush^2 > .....

 

I'm still happily anjoying TANF on both my L^2s after many months... however, based on some of the recent comments here, I thought it might be time to re-evaluate so I tried four variations over the last 24 hours, in this sequence:

 

 

Rather spookily, I've been evaluating exactly the same 4 variations for much the same reasons.

 

But first I pitched JSSG Cubed against TANF because it was so easy to change a single pin.

And for me, TANF won easily. Yes JSSG Cubed was warm and pleasant, and yes it had more bass. But that pleasantness seemed to lose some of the life and soul of the music, at least compared to TANF. And for me, "more bass" meant "bloated bass" compared to TANF's tighter bass presentation.

 

I'll report back on Default vs TANF in a couple of days, but one thing I can say right now that a seeminlgy small change to the rest of the system can skew the relative merits of these two configurations. Which further reinforces the YMMV mantra.

[FileMakerDev]

9 hours ago, TheAttorney said:

...one thing I can say right now that a seeminlgy small change to the rest of the system can skew the relative merits of these two configurations. Which further reinforces the YMMV mantra.

 

Words of wisdom.

[robocop]

Quote

Yes I'm retrying default config then will try Tanf again.

 

Happy New Year and I've had the time to retry "Tanf" again after listening for a month on Peters default. It was easy to pick and back to default within 20 mins. Not sure whether I needed to leave it set for longer but much prefer what I think is a better balanced sound with default. 

[TheAttorney]

On 12/2/2019 at 12:52 AM, FileMakerDev said:

EtherRegen > AQ Cinnamon > ultraRendu > Lush^2 > ISO-Regen > Lush^2 > Lampizator Big 7

 

I'm still happily anjoying TANF on both my L^2s after many months... however, based on some of the recent comments here, I thought it might be time to re-evaluate so I tried four variations over the last 24 hours, in this sequence:

 

A. Default config on both L^2s

B. TANF on the first, Default on the 2nd

C. Default on the first, TANF on the 2nd

D. TANF on both

 

The results: A sounded the most "canned" and least alive, B sounded better, C sounded better than B, and D was best of all, i.e., the most alive and convincing. Of course this was a matter of degree, and a year ago, I'd have been thrilled with any of the above. But having now been spoiled, my clear, unambiguous preference is for D.

 

For example, the ECM album BLACK ICE by the Wolfert Brederode Trio opens with a cymbal splash. C sounds great, but only on D do I get goosebumps from it... the high-end is wide open, and the dynamics are amazing. I could cite many other examples, e.g., on the intro to "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat" on Jeff Beck's WIRED album, only D has the ideal combination of "bite" and "sweetness".

 

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.

[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.

[TheAttorney]

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.

 

[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.