USB audio cracked... finally!

[Teresa]

I’ve been back and forth and the Lush sounds more like live music to me. Voices, instruments and the recording space sound more realistic. More ambiance retrieval, more body and attack in musical instruments, more lushness in vocals. What I don’t totally understand is why? However, I am liking how my high resolution music files sound with the Lush. By contrast the Dynex USB sounds a little cold, it was hard to go back to listening to music with the Dynex after living with the Lush for two weeks, but I did.
 
When I purchased the Dynex USB I believed all USB cables sounded the same, and that was as good as I could expect from my computer music files (wav, dff and dsf.) in my system. 
 
This of course was auditioned sighted and many would consider my audio / video / computer system mid-fi, but I love it. Thing is, with the Dynex USB  2.8MHz DSD music files played through my Teac DAC never sounded as good as my SACDs played on my Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player using its cheap internal DAC. I think that has changed now. I believe that 2.8MHz DSD music files with the Lush USB may now sound as good as or maybe even better than my SACDs. And an USB cable is why, I would never have believed it.
 
I have Jacintha’s Lush Life as both a 2.8MHz DSD download and an SACD. This is because in my system all discs (SACDs, CDs, etc.) sound better to me played on my Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player using its cheap internal DAC than as a music files played on my Mac Mini routed to my Teac UD-501 DAC using my inexpensive Dynex USB cable. I purchased the download first, three years ago for $25, and this year I found the SACD used for $10.
 
Since I didn’t have to unplug and replug anything to listen between these two formats with different signal paths, I just flipped a switch on my preamp. I didn’t do the traditional A/B thing repeating a short section of music over and over until I want to commit Hara Kiri. Instead I cued them both up together and let them play and switched every 5 or 10 minutes or so. Unlike the Dynex USB cable with the Lush USB cable I had a hard time hearing any differences between the SACD and the DSD music file. In the past I had thought perhaps the SACDs through the Yamaha’s built-in cheap DAC perhaps had filtering I liked better than USB from the computer to the Teac DAC, it now appears to me it was the USB cable as they sound nearly identical now, if I listen really closely I believe the 2.8MHz DSD download with the Lush USB cable has warmer and fuller bass (how is that even possible?) and sound a little more lifelike. This means my 2.8MHz DSD downloads may be slightly better sounding than my SACDs. It’s close, however I still love playing my SACDs. 
 
Anyway, with my Dynex USB cable the SACD alway sounded better than the DSD music file, this is one reason for the past two years I haven’t purchased any high resolution downloads and spend my music money on SACDs and Blu-ray discs. The other reason is I can sell or trade in SACDs I don’t like, with music files my only choice is to delete them at a 100% loss. I may resume buying music files for things I can’t get on SACD or Blu-ray, but I will have to be more careful than I have been in the past. I have to feel I will actually keep the high resolution music file before I pay money for it.
 
I also compared CDs and HRx Data-DVDs played on the Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player with the wav files I loaded from them onto my computer and played using the Lush USB to my Teac DAC, and I thought the Lush USB to Teac DAC sounded slightly better, the direct opposite of what I heard using the Dynex USB cable.
 
Maybe with better equipment, younger and/or better ears, I might hear more of the glory I’ve read about in this thread. Most of my equipment would be considered mid-fi by many. I am happy that the Lush USB has brought my high resolution music files on my computer not only up to but slightly surpass the music on my physical high resolution discs. 

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

I’ve been back and forth and the Lush sounds more like live music to me. Voices, instruments and the recording space sound more realistic. More ambiance retrieval, more body and attack in musical instruments, more lushness in vocals. What I don’t totally understand is why? However, I am liking how my high resolution music files sound with the Lush. By contrast the Dynex USB sounds a little cold, it was hard to go back to listening to music with the Dynex after living with the Lush for two weeks, but I did.
 
When I purchased the Dynex USB I believed all USB cables sounded the same, and that was as good as I could expect from my computer music files (wav, dff and dsf.) in my system. 
 
This of course was auditioned sighted and many would consider my audio / video / computer system mid-fi, but I love it. Thing is, with the Dynex USB  2.8MHz DSD music files played through my Teac DAC never sounded as good as my SACDs played on my Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player using its cheap internal DAC. I think that has changed now. I believe that 2.8MHz DSD music files with the Lush USB may now sound as good as or maybe even better than my SACDs. And an USB cable is why, I would never have believed it.
 
I have Jacintha’s Lush Life as both a 2.8MHz DSD download and an SACD. This is because in my system all discs (SACDs, CDs, etc.) sound better to me played on my Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player using its cheap internal DAC than as a music files played on my Mac Mini routed to my Teac UD-501 DAC using my inexpensive Dynex USB cable. I purchased the download first, three years ago for $25, and this year I found the SACD used for $10.
 
Since I didn’t have to unplug and replug anything to listen between these two formats with different signal paths, I just flipped a switch on my preamp. I didn’t do the traditional A/B thing repeating a short section of music over and over until I want to commit Hara Kiri. Instead I cued them both up together and let them play and switched every 5 or 10 minutes or so. Unlike the Dynex USB cable with the Lush USB cable I had a hard time hearing any differences between the SACD and the DSD music file. In the past I had thought perhaps the SACDs through the Yamaha’s built-in cheap DAC perhaps had filtering I liked better than USB from the computer to the Teac DAC, it now appears to me it was the USB cable as they sound nearly identical now, if I listen really closely I believe the 2.8MHz DSD download with the Lush USB cable has warmer and fuller bass (how is that even possible?) and sound a little more lifelike. This means my 2.8MHz DSD downloads may be slightly better sounding than my SACDs. It’s close, however I still love playing my SACDs. 
 
Anyway, with my Dynex USB cable the SACD alway sounded better than the DSD music file, this is one reason for the past two years I haven’t purchased any high resolution downloads and spend my music money on SACDs and Blu-ray discs. The other reason is I can sell or trade in SACDs I don’t like, with music files my only choice is to delete them at a 100% loss. I may resume buying music files for things I can’t get on SACD or Blu-ray, but I will have to be more careful than I have been in the past. I have to feel I will actually keep the high resolution music file before I pay money for it.
 
I also compared CDs and HRx Data-DVDs played on the Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player with the wav files I loaded from them onto my computer and played using the Lush USB to my Teac DAC, and I thought the Lush USB to Teac DAC sounded slightly better, the direct opposite of what I heard using the Dynex USB cable.
 
Maybe with better equipment, younger and/or better ears, I might hear more of the glory I’ve read about in this thread. Most of my equipment would be considered mid-fi by many. I am happy that the Lush USB has brought my high resolution music files on my computer not only up to but slightly surpass the music on my physical high resolution discs. 

 

This is how a review should be written! Awesome.

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

I’ve been back and forth and the Lush sounds more like live music to me.

 

Wow, Teresa ! you made an endeavor from it ! I kind of expected that you didn't like the Lush much and kept quiet about it (which was appreciated already - haha). But the contrary - and you did a very thorough job there.

 

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

This is how a review should be written! Awesome.

 

Buy Teresa, didn't you officially write reviews some longer time ago ? (music reviews IIRC ?)

So Yes, awesome. But already that because of the time you took for it and as you announced at first "it will take me some weeks".

 

OK, you have some questions in there and I will need to focus on them to have decent answers. For now I can tell you that I myself still am learning with this "stupid" cable, up to something the most drastic I learned only 2 days ago. It goes on and on. And indeed, it seems to be about contradictions (as in "the contrary - odd !"). I think I will be back on it tomorrow.

 

Thanks a lot,

Peter

 

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Teresa said:

I’ve been back and forth and the Lush sounds more like live music to me. Voices, instruments and the recording space sound more realistic. More ambiance retrieval, more body and attack in musical instruments, more lushness in vocals. What I don’t totally understand is why? However, I am liking how my high resolution music files sound with the Lush. By contrast the Dynex USB sounds a little cold, it was hard to go back to listening to music with the Dynex after living with the Lush for two weeks, but I did.

 

This is the process. It's always doing whatever's necessary to get closer to what's on the recording, alone - and each step is removing one or more artifices that the playback chain introduces into the mix. That you suggest your gear would be considered midfi by some has nothing to do with anything - I've spent most of my tweaking time with equipment that people have ridiculed often, as being of such a low order of performance that my results must be fantasies. But my interest is in the learning - and it's very clear that extremely low cost audio gear can be made to operate at an extremely competent level - far beyond what most people with very expensive rigs ever get to hear.

[Teresa]

14 hours ago, PeterSt said:

...Teresa, didn't you officially write reviews some longer time ago ? (music reviews IIRC ?)...

 

Thanks a lot,

Peter

 

Yes, Peter you recalled correctly. Until about five years ago I wrote music reviews for Positive Feedback Online magazine. I resigned when my dementia got worse.

 

I look forward to your answers to the questions I raised in my feedback on the Lush and thanks again.

 

Teresa

[PeterSt]

OK Teresa, here goes. I hope the expectation is not too high and I also hope that no scientific explanation was expected as I just don't have that. However, I always try to reason how things may work and try to get everything consistent so it could be about explanation (but maybe not today yet).

 

On 21-11-2017 at 2:51 PM, Teresa said:

I believe that 2.8MHz DSD music files with the Lush USB may now sound as good as or maybe even better than my SACDs. And an USB cable is why, I would never have believed it.

 

Let's, first off, not forget that Mani started this thread. I think I know him a little and when he does such a thing, especially after the very short time he had the Lush himself, there should be some truth in things (we all, like you, are not hasty with false judgments). But it went the same as with me myself - at the moment (the same day) I listened to this version (after a dozen of other trials) I ordered what I needed for a first batch of ~150. And there was no thread in CA about this (which I also not planned) so I too was right away quite confident. 

There has to be something in this that makes us feel "right" to the most literal sense. This obviously also means that the other cables we previously used, are "wrong". This, by now, should also be literal. But why ?

 

Of course and again I am not going to tell what I exactly did, but I do know and can tell you that it is the opposite of the Clairixa USB cable, which was supposed to be 100% right. And I spent months on that one. All to spec and everything was about how to guarantee that specs I received over the internet we the right ones in reality. Well, that the Clairixa worked out was/is as audible as the Lush result, but in a machined way. So it worked, a couple of hundred people (without CA thread) love(d) it, but by now we can see that "digital" can be too much of it. It is not analogue ...

 

On 21-11-2017 at 2:51 PM, Teresa said:

In the past I had thought perhaps the SACDs through the Yamaha’s built-in cheap DAC perhaps had filtering I liked better than USB from the computer to the Teac DAC, it now appears to me it was the USB cable as they sound nearly identical now, if I listen really closely I believe the 2.8MHz DSD download with the Lush USB cable has warmer and fuller bass (how is that even possible?)

 

The explanation to this should be (or at least can be) that your TEAC is just the better one (for at least its DAC part). But Teresa, there is no enormously much more involved. "We" change sound each few weeks drastically just by finding out software settings (this is almost literally so), where people rave about bass or/and highs or things get too dull and uninteresting for them. Just software settings. And you, through your "PC" playback means, use one setting only (probably - it depends on what you use). So it is foremost about that. Well, sort of.

 

On 21-11-2017 at 2:51 PM, Teresa said:

Maybe with better equipment, younger and/or better ears, I might hear more of the glory I’ve read about in this thread.

 

I think, for everybody, it is about something else : the prerequisite the Lush creates to not let fail "digital". And again, no matter how fast Mani created this thread after first listening to the Lush, he really says the same : this now is analog. But the real merit of that is : analog is hard to fail on you. It has infinite bandwidth for proper operation. Maybe there's a large gradation in good and bad reproduction, but it won't fail really. It won't be harsh as digital easily can do that.

 

Controversy

 

The Lush is all about that. it was made "opposite" of what it should be regarding USB as such.

It sounds opposite of what one thus should expect (sounds the "best" instead of bananas).

It unveils real natures like Teresa's example.

It makes you to rethink all you thought was fixed and previously determined.

It emphasizes reality of the environment.

 

The latter is a tricky one. The example of it is Windows 10 Build 10074 which always had a distinct flavor to me but which was my preferred OS for 6 months at least. If I try that today with the Lush, it is completely unlistenable already for a complete lack of mid. It's just not there at all (this is a bit in combination with the latest (2.09) playback software version, but still). Key point is : we already knew this 10074 build was wrong *because* it expressed that flavor. Well, the Lush tells you to not even attempt it. It shows "truth" (nothing which shows a flavor can be right).

 

I have often told that the Lush was made for MQA. This is figurative, but still, in the process of developing MQA playback - which clearly went against all odds - MQA suddenly started to be listenable instead of immediate reject, when the Lush was there.

The logic of this, is that the razor sharp Clairixa just sharpened MQA more while MQA is "sharp" as such itself. It shows too high transients which when left like that (and the intended "wrong" filtering) is just too much of it. Cold harsh sound is the result.

The Lush tames this, and does this in the same "analogue" fashion as it applies to everything.

 

The Lush adds mid foremost (especially with MQA) while it thus removes it from W10-10074. What controversy ?

(don't attempt thinking that I know why this is)

 

The Lush removes harshness while it adds highs. Huh ? Yes.

This one I should be able to reason out, which would be for Sunday mornings. Today is Thursday.

Anyway, while previously certain filter settings were used to actually add highs (but think in terms of less roll off in the audio band) this filter setting now is not to be used and a more transient filter makes it sound the best. What controversy ? look above why (perceivably) MQA started to work. But the more transient filter exhibits more roll off.

The whole world starts to be upside down.

 

The thing I only discovered a few days ago, does it all :

Mani will know too what endeavors we all undertook to compare Vinyl Rips with vinyl itself and also with CD versions of the same. Recordings were done with the Pacific Microsonics Model Two (by ourselves) and while we couldn't discern a difference between the vinyl playback and the reproduction via the recording, there was also the most clear common denominator in ALL the vinyl rips at least I obtained (over 1000) : they lack highs.

Well, didn't I earlier on describe the sudden "all OK" of Machine Head (Deep Purple) ? There's hardly highs in any version (btw the HDCD = I think PMII recorded, ahead). Listen to it now. It is actually not imaginable where the highs suddenly come from. So how can it be that highs which were not there (at all, so to speak), are there now like any other album; just no difference.

(again, don't attempt thinking that I know why this is)

With the vinyl rips the same. They still lack dynamics, but for highs ? ... it surely is there. The immediate downside is that I can now hear easily how everybody's cartridge is so so. And how (thus) poorly vinyl must sound through random cartridges (including the Turntables s themselves of course). Not all, but (logically) most.

 

Yesterday I saw Mr Brian Lucey mention that older recordings sound old. He most probably referred to "old" as being not-squashed, but I read it in a deeper context : colored as how older recordings exhibit a wrong timbre etc. And there we go again : I don't hear such a thing at all any more with the Lush (including my further reproduction chain if course).

How ?

 

So the Lush does all kinds of things in an upside down manner. As if the upside down design approach does that (but this clearly was not intended). What we could try to learn from it, is that where this cable tells the truth about our reproduction chain, it is a very useful tool in it.

And if I am correct in e.g. my judgment about the timbre and such, then apparently it is so that (digital ?) audio has buried-in nastiness which can be overcome. Not restored, but not rendered as offensive. Think like illegal transients which can harm for many milliseconds but which are now "shaved". And well, ending with this, I see myself writing the same as in the original (commercial) post somewhere, because that's how things come across and which also happens at the technical (electrical) level to some degree. So what is surely controversial just the same is that what's perceived from analogue usually, can be projected on this digital protocol cable. So think of it, how can my explanation about "shaved transients" ever happen within this protocol. Still electrically the same should be happening (shave the wave form), which is about bits and packet bursts and what not what is all not related.

But let's say it is ...

 

Peter

 

PS: What did you say there ? measurements ? well, at least the applied measurement wires are still sticking out of my DAC everywhere.

 

 

 

[CuteStudio]

It is good to read that people have found a positive difference with the cable.

 

Has there been any blind testing yet? I'm not saying that blind testing is the answer to everything, but it just seems to be a basic test. E.g. from AES:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

 

Additionally has anyone been able to test the effect of inserting a resistor in the ground and/or shielding to see what effect that may have? As the USB is a differential block based digital format/system I wonder if the Lush may be somehow allowing less electrical connection (and therefore interference, ground loops etc.) to pass between the digital source and the DAC.

 

I.e. if this effect is both real and can be isolated it may be possible to add the resistor in the DAC and therefore improving sound for everyone.

[PeterSt]

39 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

Additionally has anyone been able to test the effect of inserting a resistor in the ground and/or shielding to see what effect that may have?

 

Hi - Anyone who feels entitled to answer can do so of course, but since you're asking and I did that myself - Yes, I did that. 

But others did the same before me (and after me) and the Regen Amber is based on that (Alex C will correct me when necessary).

 

And no, this is a totally different application;

When applied as such in the cable it implies a slightly different sound and the explanation of it is even more difficult than how the Lush is supposed to do its work. And, it is again reasoning only, - my own (read : I have never seen an explanation anywhere).

Side note in between : *that* coincidentally was kind of tested blind as at some stage I found by helper little cable in some box which I was sure it was in all the time ... and I thus never noticed it. Now :

 

What happens with the resistor of a too high value is that the signal is degraded in such a fashion that the "control" of the USB protocol - and then thinking "covering for clock speed variation on both ends" runs out of headroom - that USB eventually stops working. Thus, runs e.g. a minute and then stops.

From this follows that this speed control - which is a process - requires more or less effort (this translates to current draw) and this changes sound. So yes, such a resistor changes SQ but the why can be explained. The how exactly is kind of dealt with in this thread somewhere and this still requires a lot of  imagination from those reading it. It is for me not difficult at all to write this because I operate with these phenomena for 10 years by now (how stupid Playback Software controls a D/A converter regarding jitter). So let's not go back to that - it is somewhere in this thread and quite extensively (but not understood - just saying).

 

What is quite coincidental but convenient for the explanation ... Teresa herself has been part of this exhibit - sound stops after a minute or so;

Teresa is one out of two with a 300cm Lush cable. We delivered one other before her and while I highly doubted it would work, it did. But not with Teresa. So, what happens is that the (deliberately) out of spec USB cable, could just be a tad too long to let it work well (contrary : the Clairixa will work well over 10 meters, while 5.5 meters is the (max) spec, normally).

What happened was that the phenomenon I just described, was in order at Teresa's, but now in a combination of more resistance because of the longer cable (critically, as I expected). Luckily I had the experience with the resistor indeed and per Teresa's description I could propose a solution : "try another USB port with more power behind it (while it is not about a USB powered DAC at all AFAIK), which you hopefully have". And this worked right away, luckily.

If I made up a few things here or there, I am sure Teresa will correct me.

 

What we can learn from this, is how the length of a USB cable influences SQ but in a fashion probably nobody is able to guess. This starts with the idea how "processing" as such can influence SQ.

 

Thanks,

Peter

[Teresa]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

OK Teresa, here goes. I hope the expectation is not too high and I also hope that no scientific explanation was expected as I just don't have that. However, I always try to reason how things may work and try to get everything consistent so it could be about explanation (but maybe not today yet).

 

 

Let's, first off, not forget that Mani started this thread. I think I know him a little and when he does such a thing, especially after the very short time he had the Lush himself, there should be some truth in things (we all, like you, are not hasty with false judgments). But it went the same as with me myself - at the moment (the same day) I listened to this version (after a dozen of other trials) I ordered what I needed for a first batch of ~150. And there was no thread in CA about this (which I also not planned) so I too was right away quite confident. 

There has to be something in this that makes us feel "right" to the most literal sense. This obviously also means that the other cables we previously used, are "wrong". This, by now, should also be literal. But why ?

 

Of course and again I am not going to tell what I exactly did, but I do know and can tell you that it is the opposite of the Clairixa USB cable, which was supposed to be 100% right. And I spent months on that one. All to spec and everything was about how to guarantee that specs I received over the internet we the right ones in reality. Well, that the Clairixa worked out was/is as audible as the Lush result, but in a machined way. So it worked, a couple of hundred people (without CA thread) love(d) it, but by now we can see that "digital" can be too much of it. It is not analogue ...

 

 

The explanation to this should be (or at least can be) that your TEAC is just the better one (for at least its DAC part). But Teresa, there is no enormously much more involved. "We" change sound each few weeks drastically just by finding out software settings (this is almost literally so), where people rave about bass or/and highs or things get too dull and uninteresting for them. Just software settings. And you, through your "PC" playback means, use one setting only (probably - it depends on what you use). So it is foremost about that. Well, sort of.

 

 

I think, for everybody, it is about something else : the prerequisite the Lush creates to not let fail "digital". And again, no matter how fast Mani created this thread after first listening to the Lush, he really says the same : this now is analog. But the real merit of that is : analog is hard to fail on you. It has infinite bandwidth for proper operation. Maybe there's a large gradation in good and bad reproduction, but it won't fail really. It won't be harsh as digital easily can do that.

 

Controversy

 

The Lush is all about that. it was made "opposite" of what it should be regarding USB as such.

It sounds opposite of what one thus should expect (sounds the "best" instead of bananas).

It unveils real natures like Teresa's example.

It makes you to rethink all you thought was fixed and previously determined.

It emphasizes reality of the environment.

 

The latter is a tricky one. The example of it is Windows 10 Build 10074 which always had a distinct flavor to me but which was my preferred OS for 6 months at least. If I try that today with the Lush, it is completely unlistenable already for a complete lack of mid. It's just not there at all (this is a bit in combination with the latest (2.09) playback software version, but still). Key point is : we already knew this 10074 build was wrong *because* it expressed that flavor. Well, the Lush tells you to not even attempt it. It shows "truth" (nothing which shows a flavor can be right).

 

I have often told that the Lush was made for MQA. This is figurative, but still, in the process of developing MQA playback - which clearly went against all odds - MQA suddenly started to be listenable instead of immediate reject, when the Lush was there.

The logic of this, is that the razor sharp Clairixa just sharpened MQA more while MQA is "sharp" as such itself. It shows too high transients which when left like that (and the intended "wrong" filtering) is just too much of it. Cold harsh sound is the result.

The Lush tames this, and does this in the same "analogue" fashion as it applies to everything.

 

The Lush adds mid foremost (especially with MQA) while it thus removes it from W10-10074. What controversy ?

(don't attempt thinking that I know why this is)

 

The Lush removes harshness while it adds highs. Huh ? Yes.

This one I should be able to reason out, which would be for Sunday mornings. Today is Thursday.

Anyway, while previously certain filter settings were used to actually add highs (but think in terms of less roll off in the audio band) this filter setting now is not to be used and a more transient filter makes it sound the best. What controversy ? look above why (perceivably) MQA started to work. But the more transient filter exhibits more roll off.

The whole world starts to be upside down.

 

The thing I only discovered a few days ago, does it all :

Mani will know too what endeavors we all undertook to compare Vinyl Rips with vinyl itself and also with CD versions of the same. Recordings were done with the Pacific Microsonics Model Two (by ourselves) and while we couldn't discern a difference between the vinyl playback and the reproduction via the recording, there was also the most clear common denominator in ALL the vinyl rips at least I obtained (over 1000) : they lack highs.

Well, didn't I earlier on describe the sudden "all OK" of Machine Head (Deep Purple) ? There's hardly highs in any version (btw the HDCD = I think PMII recorded, ahead). Listen to it now. It is actually not imaginable where the highs suddenly come from. So how can it be that highs which were not there (at all, so to speak), are there now like any other album; just no difference.

(again, don't attempt thinking that I know why this is)

With the vinyl rips the same. They still lack dynamics, but for highs ? ... it surely is there. The immediate downside is that I can now hear easily how everybody's cartridge is so so. And how (thus) poorly vinyl must sound through random cartridges (including the Turntables s themselves of course). Not all, but (logically) most.

 

Yesterday I saw Mr Brian Lucey mention that older recordings sound old. He most probably referred to "old" as being not-squashed, but I read it in a deeper context : colored as how older recordings exhibit a wrong timbre etc. And there we go again : I don't hear such a thing at all any more with the Lush (including my further reproduction chain if course).

How ?

 

So the Lush does all kinds of things in an upside down manner. As if the upside down design approach does that (but this clearly was not intended). What we could try to learn from it, is that where this cable tells the truth about our reproduction chain, it is a very useful tool in it.

And if I am correct in e.g. my judgment about the timbre and such, then apparently it is so that (digital ?) audio has buried-in nastiness which can be overcome. Not restored, but not rendered as offensive. Think like illegal transients which can harm for many milliseconds but which are now "shaved". And well, ending with this, I see myself writing the same as in the original (commercial) post somewhere, because that's how things come across and which also happens at the technical (electrical) level to some degree. So what is surely controversial just the same is that what's perceived from analogue usually, can be projected on this digital protocol cable. So think of it, how can my explanation about "shaved transients" ever happen within this protocol. Still electrically the same should be happening (shave the wave form), which is about bits and packet bursts and what not what is all not related.

But let's say it is ...

 

Peter

 

PS: What did you say there ? measurements ? well, at least the applied measurement wires are still sticking out of my DAC everywhere.

 

Hi Peter,

 

Wow, thanks for the very detailed and lengthy answers to my questions. I guess I have learned that cables can make a difference in the digital domain as well. 

 

Happy Thanksgiving,

Teresa

[rando]

@Teresa Since it is Thanksgiving here I would like to wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving and again thank Peter for embodying the goodwill we are celebrating here in the states today.  

[barrows]

6 hours ago, CuteStudio said:

It is good to read that people have found a positive difference with the cable.

 

Has there been any blind testing yet? I'm not saying that blind testing is the answer to everything, but it just seems to be a basic test. E.g. from AES:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

 

Additionally has anyone been able to test the effect of inserting a resistor in the ground and/or shielding to see what effect that may have? As the USB is a differential block based digital format/system I wonder if the Lush may be somehow allowing less electrical connection (and therefore interference, ground loops etc.) to pass between the digital source and the DAC.

 

I.e. if this effect is both real and can be isolated it may be possible to add the resistor in the DAC and therefore improving sound for everyone.

Have you listened to the LUSH?  Have you even done listening comparisons between any USB cables?  I ask because you mentioned blind testing, while I am not a fan of any blinded evaluations for reasons which have been discussed elsewhere ad infinitum (and I will not go into here, again), the point is that the sonic difference between many USB cables is not very subtle.  and between the LUSH and many cables the difference is quite obvious within a couple of seconds of listening.  While the LUSH is not my choice in my system and for all music, I consider this a system matching thing and am keeping my LUSH on hand specifically because I do a lot of testing of components, and component development, and I like to have a few uSB cable options for voicing, and getting the best out of various DACs, etc.

I cannot imagine anyone who compares, for example: The LUSH vs something like the Inakustik Reference not hearing an immediate and very obvious difference, it really is that stark of a difference, if you bothered to listen I doubt that you would be mentioning anything like blind testing!

I have another new USB cable soon for testing, so another round of comparisons is in order, perhaps soon...

[CuteStudio]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

What we can learn from this, is how the length of a USB cable influences SQ but in a fashion probably nobody is able to guess. This starts with the idea how "processing" as such can influence SQ.

 

Thanks,

Peter

 

Thanks for the info Peter, I suppose with a fast enough transformer the ground would not even need to be connected (like pro-audio balanced inputs) but how that would affect the termination impedances would need to be carefully managed. 

 

One day I'll have to split a USB cable and add a potentiometer to try some of this stuff out!

[CuteStudio]

23 minutes ago, barrows said:

Have you listened to the LUSH?  Have you even done listening comparisons between any USB cables?

 

I cannot imagine anyone who compares, for example: The LUSH vs something like the Inakustik Reference not hearing an

 

 

I don't have the Lush no - or any USB cables that are not Belkin etc. I can't say I have noticed any difference ever but that's just my experience. Additionally I go via SPDIF so my DAC is entirely isolated from my source (Raspberry PI 3B) electrically, and my DAC arrangement re-clocks it (via PLL and an internal reference) all anyway.

Interesting I've swapped in various USB->optical converters too and not found a difference, but cleaning up my amplifiers RCA sockets had a big effect on the sound. It's a shame in a way that my system is atypical.

 

I cannot imagine the difference people hear in the Lush delaying a blind test, it seems the obvious thing to do and would confirm the difference in sound - not just that there was a difference, but more of what it was. I find blind tests are interesting because often I hear differences I'd had not noticed before. I think it's the removal of the bias of knowing - you may well find sonic abilities in the Lush that you'd previously overlooked.

[PeterSt]

Dear people - Yes, happy Thanksgiving ! (I found out this afternoon, Nasdaq not opening and such).

 

5 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

I think it's the removal of the bias of knowing - you may well find sonic abilities in the Lush that you'd previously overlooked.

 

I think what @barrowswas saying is that nothing in you will feel compelled to even think of such a thing as A-B, let alone blind. And as @Teresa said in between the lines : going back is a hard call for her. Same as it was for me - that Clairixa now sounds all but analogue and once you know that, why compare further ? it is just way too obvious. Of course YMMV but this is the general consensus I get from everybody. And even if one would not like the Lush, then still it is the most obvious (why)

 

15 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

not just that there was a difference, but more of what it was.

.

Simply a whole shift of balance to all over places. And more "audiophile" put : the whole tonal presentation is close to 100% different. Emphasis on frequencies move from highs to mid and if "necessary" the other way around. So let me rephrase somewhat :

I could not be interested what the difference is, but how it can exist in this measure. Or more evil : how it can take out the complete mid just because of some Operating System. That actually should be worrying. 

 

[barrows]

@CuteStudio, My system includes a fully isolated (galvanic) USB input on my DAC with full re-clocking after the isolation as well.  Still, the difference in sound between the LUSH and the Inakustik (I mention Inakustik specifically because this cable highlights the differences in the extreme, while it is still an excellent performer and preferred in some system balances) is not subtle at all, again this difference is easily noted within a couple of seconds of playback as it is very, very easily heard.  While I never test blind (anymore), I have confirmed these differences with demonstrating these two cables for other listeners, without them having any prior knowledge what to expect: I would just say listen to this, then make the change, without giving the (non-audiophile) listener any prior idea what to expect, or even to expect any difference at all-the result still being the same.

 

I would suggest that if you have avoided auditioning high end USB cables because of a "belief system", rather than actual experience, that you are missing out on significant performance increases for your system.

[fas42]

Man, how it takes so many words to say that altering an aspect of a system can change the nature of unwanted artifacts in the sound - for all sorts of simple, and complex reasons, . I would go mad trying to unscramble all that counter counter counter stuff ...

 

I'm a simple man ... I just want to hear what's on the recording, the playback chain must be as invisible as possible - I don't care if something is different with the sound, I just want it to get closer to what was captured at the time of the musical event. And this is relatively easy to sort out if one can always pick when the playback chain is the culprit - then you don't worry about differences, you just want to eliminate the flaws in the setup.

[CuteStudio]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

I just want to hear what's on the recording, the playback chain must be as invisible as possible -

 

 

It's an interesting observation, let me tell you my perspective as an aside:

About 14 years ago I realised that the games and politics that go on in the recording and mastering chain (many involving multiple DA-compress+limit-AD chains and the truncation of up to 6dB off all of the peaks to 'fit' something onto a CD format disk or stream) concerned me far more than the playback chain.

 

This was the result of a multi-day operation to cure an odd buzzing sound that came and went on my HiFi. It wasn't the speaker connections, or a loose RCA, or a bad USB cable, and after a while I worked out that it didn't affect old 'Floyd or Dire Straits at all: just the new stuff, at which point I used Audacity to look at the CD content and that showed the problem.

 

It was this that made me relax about the law of diminishing returns in the playback chain, my efforts were merely giving me a clearer image/sound/insight into the terrible disasters that I quickly got tired of buying. As it's almost impossible to buy any rock/pop album with even a single track complete with all the peaks not looking like they'd been run through a mangle today it takes most of my time to find something decent to play.

 

I did find this though - no connection to me - but the quality is amazing. 

http://evo88.com/en/music?page=shop.browse&keyword=chlara

http://smarturl.it/Chlara_InADifferent

 

[fas42]

9 hours ago, CuteStudio said:

 

 

It's an interesting observation, let me tell you my perspective as an aside:

About 14 years ago I realised that the games and politics that go on in the recording and mastering chain (many involving multiple DA-compress+limit-AD chains and the truncation of up to 6dB off all of the peaks to 'fit' something onto a CD format disk or stream) concerned me far more than the playback chain.

 

This was the result of a multi-day operation to cure an odd buzzing sound that came and went on my HiFi. It wasn't the speaker connections, or a loose RCA, or a bad USB cable, and after a while I worked out that it didn't affect old 'Floyd or Dire Straits at all: just the new stuff, at which point I used Audacity to look at the CD content and that showed the problem.

 

It was this that made me relax about the law of diminishing returns in the playback chain, my efforts were merely giving me a clearer image/sound/insight into the terrible disasters that I quickly got tired of buying. As it's almost impossible to buy any rock/pop album with even a single track complete with all the peaks not looking like they'd been run through a mangle today it takes most of my time to find something decent to play.

 

I did find this though - no connection to me - but the quality is amazing. 

http://evo88.com/en/music?page=shop.browse&keyword=chlara

http://smarturl.it/Chlara_InADifferent

 

 

And in turn this directs me to a learning that has evolved over decades: "there is no such thing as a bad recording" - take 3 times a day, after a meal ...

 

What that means is a system can be evolved to a point where all the flaws of the recording become subjectively invisible - it becomes a mental effort to focus on the technical failings, as something that's part of the aural picture - as compared to many systems which forcefully draw one's attention to every tiny defect in the recording source.

 

Extreme mashing of source is the worst 'problem', I do agree - but intelligent decompression can get such under control - I would see doing that as being part of a playback chain which has been optimised in every possible way.

[CuteStudio]

41 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What that means is a system can be evolved to a point where all the flaws of the recording become subjectively invisible - it becomes a mental effort to focus on the technical failings, as something that's part of the aural picture - as compared to many systems which forcefully draw one's attention to every tiny defect in the recording source.

 

Extreme mashing of source is the worst 'problem', I do agree - but intelligent decompression can get such under control - I would see doing that as being part of a playback chain which has been optimised in every possible way.

 

If you can describe/design a system that make's Norah Jones 'The Fall' listenable toI'll be all ears  

[fas42]

36 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

 

If you can describe/design a system that make's Norah Jones 'The Fall' listenable toI'll be all ears  

 

"Chasing Pirates"? - never heard it before - I'm liking it more and more, with each repeat ... . Found a YouTube clip, grabbed the best audio version, had a look in Audacity - hmmm, classic limiting, running the peaks to the max constantly - the laptop playback doesn't like full level stuff, so just give it 0.5dB attentuation, for a touch of breathing space, and export to WAV. Use Media Monkey - very nice, the voice works well, lots of heavily processed backing stuff, like the piano ... but full of Easter eggs - it's an interesting listen, I could be tempted to buy the album ...

[CuteStudio]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

"Chasing Pirates"? - never heard it before - I'm liking it more and more, with each repeat ... . Found a YouTube clip, grabbed the best audio version, had a look in Audacity - hmmm, classic limiting, running the peaks to the max constantly - the laptop playback doesn't like full level stuff, so just give it 0.5dB attentuation, for a touch of breathing space, and export to WAV. Use Media Monkey - very nice, the voice works well, lots of heavily processed backing stuff, like the piano ... but full of Easter eggs - it's an interesting listen, I could be tempted to buy the album ...

 

[CuteStudio]

Chasing Pirates is the first track yes, only the last track is not so badly limited. I like the songs, this album is the subject of much discussion on the internet, BlueNote released a far better mastered vinyl release but they pressed it on noisy (cheap/recycled) vinyl so there's a choice

 

I never play anything at 0dB, all my digital music is level matched and this album plays around 6dB down (resampled into 24bit for the DAC so no detail is lost). With that setting I've not found anything that copes with it, the nearly 73,000 clips don't help I guess and the compression/limiting is considerable - among the worst I've ever seen.

 

It's an interesting track though - one of the rare ones where the limiting of the -ve going side is quite different to the limiting of the +ve going waveform, I suspect it was piped through an old analog limiter for that effect.

 

Hope the pics come out here, can't see a preview button:

 

Sorry it's a bit off topic but it's still digital audio so it still has some tenuous connection with USB

You should buy the CD, if you can cope with the sound there's some great tunes. Also check out her 'Little Broken Hearts' if you like Norah. 

[PeterSt]

38 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

Sorry it's a bit off topic but it's still digital audio so it still has some tenuous connection with USB

 

38 minutes ago, CuteStudio said:

 

Hope the pics come out here, can't see a preview button:

 

Next time, drop your picture on the text "Drag files here to attach" you see next to the paperclip when posting. After that you can click the grayed "+" to insert it in your text.

This prohibits us from watching commercials from that image provider you use there.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, CuteStudio said:

It's an interesting track though - one of the rare ones where the limiting of the -ve going side is quite different to the limiting of the +ve going waveform, I suspect it was piped through an old analog limiter for that effect.

 

I'm afraid you look at it wrongly or don't use the proper program for that. This was about that Pirates track, right ?

 

 

 

[Doak]

On 11/23/2017 at 3:58 PM, fas42 said:

Man, how it takes so many words to say that altering an aspect of a system can change the nature of unwanted artifacts in the sound - for all sorts of simple, and complex reasons, . I would go mad trying to unscramble all that counter counter counter stuff ...

 

I'm a simple man ... I just want to hear what's on the recording, the playback chain must be as invisible as possible - I don't care if something is different with the sound, I just want it to get closer to what was captured at the time of the musical event. And this is relatively easy to sort out if one can always pick when the playback chain is the culprit - then you don't worry about differences, you just want to eliminate the flaws in the setup.

 

Great that something so simple works for you. 

Such simplicity would not result in the quality/type of sound many of us are getting out our music systems, however. It's another one of those age old questions/debates - as old as music reproduction.