Hi Georg. I'm afraid then that is your problem, because it is ...
I just checked it (downloaded 2.10 main file (first listed in the 2.10 topic) myself and unpacked) and it just is there.
Maybe some anti virus after all ?
Or maybe it got deleted by whatever accident ?

My suggestion is to re-download the .rar and retry ...

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi Georg,

Maybe it is so that the .exe files in your XX folder are "blocked" (see properties of the files) ?
In this case it would be about ChangeWP.exe.

If that is not so ... can you change the Wallpaper (like with rightclick on the Desktop etc.) ? If your Windows is not activated your answer will probably be "No", but in that case I don't know whether it influences. This is because you probably have a Windows 10 version which is (may not be) compatible. If you go to a Command Prompt and type Winver in there, what version / build does it come up with ? The N 1511 does not ring a bell really, but it looks to be an older one (maybe even provided by me).

Regards,
Peter

Ramesh, correct.

A: B-R B: B-R

Regards,
Peter

Oops, Michael, you are right. I have been confusing myself with the arrival dates. A pair sent after you arrived earlier, and that one received the A:B-R, B:B-R.

Sorry for the confusion !
Peter

Something else ...


What you see here is the "definitive" version of the Blaxius^2 in Digital fashion. Let's say it is named Blaxius^2-Digital.
The difference with the Blaxius^2 for anlogue is the missing White wire. The annotation as you see it in the picture (the B end assumed the same) would be :

A:[W]B-R, B:[W]B-R

The [W] means that it is internally there all right and can not be avoided. It also means that - unlike the normal Blaxius^2 - it would be allowed to not connect any of the "connectable" wires. This is because the ground return path goes over the fixed (White) shield. It would look like :

A:[W], B:[W]

So, true, the "White"/innermost shield is there by standard for the digital version of the Blaxius^2. This appeared to be necessary for utmost critical applications, like Chord's Hugo M Scaler. Envision two BNC outputs for a dual wire setup to achieve max 768KHz output (each BNC cable being 384 capable), those outputs so close to each other that there's only 1mm space in between the two cables. And now they interfere with each other with the notice that for normal Blaxius^2 there is no configuration possible with 100% shield coverage for the signal wire in the cable. Thus also not when the inner shield (W) is the one in use.

The above mentioned is normally not a problem, but the M Scaler which seems suspect to RFI to begin with (not my own judgment but derived from hot discussions about it elsewhere), now pushes its higher frequency signal (50Mbit/s per cable) through two very close to each other connections, them causing interference with each other. And now the tiniest bit of "irregularity" may cause trouble.

Peter

Hi Michael,

What a nice surprise this early morning !

Thank you very much for being the first to really use it (as far as I can tell - others are travelling) ... and report about it.

What is also nice for me to see is that it works out as well with a quite different system. It should because of what it protects from (like the Lush^2) but the analogue application is a quite different beast and the behavior could be different (still many configurations to try out when it would not have worked out and notice that you received the same as I use myself - this does not count for the others already delivered).

Thank you Michael !
Peter

In a separate post I like to mention this :

I feel we are on the verge of a new era in audiophiledom. Things start to happen in - or of a dimension which wasn't thought possible. I say this because *I* thought it was not possible, having worked on the sub-mm localization with phase angles and such.

As many of you will know, by now I "claim" that the 3D representation of recorded instruments, played back through loudspeakers, is not possible because of a lack of high frequency (without explaining further, my local positioning system (LPS) endeavors from pre-Phasure times worked in the 2.4GHz band, while here we have a max 20KHz band only). But I start to change my mind ...

The LPS lived by the grace of more than one frequency (a dirty trick), while audio, although comprising of say 100 frequencies we can hear, is still way too low in frequency itself to allow "re-positioning" by means of phase angle (and ITD vs ILD and whatever we humans work with). Very roughly, if 20KHz is 100 times lower in frequency than 2GHz, the theoretical accuracy of the "system" is 100 times less than the sub 1mm accuracy. Make that 1mm and the accuracy for audio would be 10cm which is insufficient for "pinpointing" and (re)building an image in mid air.

Can't follow ? or not agree ? then better stop reading.

If I mention a 100 frequencies (like they could spring from a few instruments, each expressing multiple frequencies like the easy example of a guitar or a violin which will have more sources of the sound of one string stroke) ... then these frequencies are certainly not all close to 20KHz. In other words, be they 1000Hz, then the accuracy again theoretically decreased by a factor of 20. 10cm now have become 2 meters and obviously nothing works. However ...

What is 100% totally clear to me is that for audible frequency, again be that the guitar or the violin, but also the drum of any kind and name it except for a recorder (flute with sine tones), the extension of those harmonics (which theoretically are infinite if they only don't die out and could be captured in the first place (microphone range etc.) ... is now infinite for the audible range.

Yes. And if not today, then hopefully tomorrow.

What I mean can be heard in anything. Examples :
- Bells are in so many recordings (just think a general percussion arrangement), and they were not there a week ago.
- The scattering sounds which emerge in the lower frequencies, are in close to 100 "ambient" tracks. It just wasn't there before.
- Synthesizer glides (sweeps), denoted by similar squared sound, are in everything of that age (think two boys with their synthesizer). Did I say everything ? - it just was not there before.
- Clarity is infinite to begin with. So a human voice too extends to way more than you thought. It makes it more real. This is spooky, but was not there.
- The roar of low frequency is in about everything. But here too, this is about higher frequency showing it. Mind you, such an oscillating sound (generated by an LFO) is always about more than one frequency (oscillating against each other).

---

Of course we know that each frequency we hear, also (close to) pure squares, is about sines (sinuses). Te more square, the more (infinite number of) sines are required to represent the sound.

---

What I sense happening is that all filtering that could attenuate the higher frequencies, has been banned. Or at least to a degree thought impossible. And that this is way beyond our current thinking, can quite easily be proven by selecting a "more rolling off" filter in all kinds of software (including XXHighEnd). Can we hear that ? a bit. Can we hear what I am talking about today ? with ears completely closed you still can.

The difficulty for me to bring this across, is and remains about it NOT being the fundamental (!) high frequencies you suddenly hear. So no cymbal suddenly starts to hiss; no S'es are presented white and painful; no flute show a higher pitch (better : frequency) or anything. No. It is the square-sound possibility which is exploited. I have heard so much of it now, that I am sure it is that. But what does it really mean, if at the same time no cymbal starts to hiss ?

-> That all what is present for higher frequency in the data and which is laying (or layered) right on top of the lower frequencies which may be square and usually always are square to some degree, - unless a pipe organ or something -, can now be dug out of that.

It is not the higher frequency which now is louder (and thus the cymbal does not start to hiss), but it is the possibility to dig out the higher frequency of the lower frequency, which is thought to be the current eating one (while I for a very long time state that the higher frequencies eat more current than the low). Anyway, both the lower and the higher play together (in real life) and the higher are required to make the sound square as it originally was, and possibly we must look at this as if the one does not eat the current for the other any more. Both now can play nicely along and it is caused by a cable. OK, shield configuration.
It hardly can be about a filter as such, because that would be audible in native higher frequency sounds (like from a cymbal). All right, they changed too (see yesterday's post) but the emphasis to square is a 100 times more apparent.

Without measuring anything, what about the thought that the shielding setup is not allowing to let escape higher frequencies which kind of "ride" on the lower frequencies. I am sure I am talking real BS now, but I seek an explanation. Lower frequencies may "push out" the higher frequencies because of a lack of space. What space ? don't ask me. But I see those higher frequencies kept in now. Kept by a shield.
Btw let's not forget that this is about analogue signal. This, while it is combined with the digital signal of the Lush^2 with very similar manipulation and of which we know for dead-sure that it changes the sound too. And vastly. But not much explainable (or at least not so easy).

---

Still there ? Good. What I was heading for throughout this post, was the sheer fact of the way more present higher frequency in actually each fundamental sound, which not only extends to one audible native so-called fundamental because a synthesizer sound (etc. etc.) never is that - only sines have that ... meaning that the one sound already comprises of several mixed fundamentals, those each (!) having their own set of harmonics and THAT again is each comprised of sines ... and that this all leads to hundreds of frequencies from one sound only, them extending to way up out of the audible range. Like the 16.21KHz harmonic we can still perceive but the 32.42 one not any more. And now thus 100s of these for one sound. Make that one instrument if you like.

What I tried to reason is that my "100 frequencies all together" with which this post started out, now suddenly are 100s of them per sound. And careful, because a 10 finger play on a piano is 10 of those sounds. So we easily end up in the 1000(s) now.

... And what I see - or very much like to see from there, is that there *is* sufficient frequency to make sounds locatable in 3D from two speakers. I can just see it coming. That Angie hi-hat spooky example as the first.
And am I changing ^2 configurations at this moment ? no way. Nature is doing its job first (burn-in). So how knows ...

Peter

For those waiting on more reports ... we managed all right, but this new Blaxius^2 owner too ran out for more than a week. Those cables must be scary.

And while I am writing here anyway ... Yesterday I received the question whether it maybe was possible to play music without all this scattering and noises and all what is completely new in my "ambient" music. My response : I can't help that this is in there. You have heard this all a 100 times. It is like it is. And I like to play it because it shows what the system is capable of, these days.

But I must tell you : Yesterday I started out with a Burt Bacharach, and the ambience coming from that floored me. As if a 100 hall processors were applied to it. After the first shock of that, I recovered and focused on the reality (I always try to do that); again nothing wrong that I could see. But it was ab-normal real(alistic) how each of the instruments + singer were presented. From there, it is not only that I don't know "where to look" (see previous post) but I also don't know where to go to explore more of this.

The actual worst part of it, seems to be that yesterday again was really much better than the day before. Things all over "snap in" and what did not fall in place yesterday yet, will today (system is on 24/7 and don't ask me how that causes real burn in, knowing that the DAC will output noise only, at -143dB or so).

Also strange : I reported (5-6 days ago ?) about the mere "mono like" presentation for recordings which weren't the best. But that disappeared completely too. I played the same album (tracks of it) and nothing was mono-like now. Actually it would be so that the general remark could be that things fly from left to right (and beyond) in a fashion I never heard before. This then as a general thing for any recording. It was even so that yesterday I was right next to the (outside - wall side of) the left hand speaker (playing at 86-88dBSPL) and the highs from the right hand speaker, that being 7 meters away from where I was, were just as audible as if I were in the middle between them. But, merely as reflections against the opposite wall. I mean, this latter has to be so because of the directivity of the horn I have. Anyway, that too I never heard before. It actually can't be either, but still it is so ...

More raving tomorrow ?

Peter

Meanwhile ...

Yes, I could use the help (on new configurations), but I start to wonder ... It is all becoming really outrageous over here.

I think I can derive from the posts in here that I must be having my own Blaxius^2 at work for close to 3 weeks now. Consider this kind of time for burn-in. But also consider required burn in of some sort per configuration. This is what I seem to notice but this is also what seems quite logical to me. This is because the signal flowing over the shields (at least one of them).

This is what I am (still) using, since Oct 29 :

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

Three days ago for the first time I started to notice that something was vastly improving without me doing anything. This continued day before yesterday and yesterday I just lost all my references ... Not explicitly, but to the sense of not knowing "where to look" any more. All is one big stream of new information and with now x things at the same time being new, it becomes impossible to focus on "a change".

---

On a side note, yesterday (and three days ago this happend to me exactly the same) I was so in ecstasy that I considered of giving you all the Blaxius^2 for free instead of giving you the chance to miss out because you think it may be too expensive, it not being worth it, or whatever you may abusively think. But it wouldn't be a practical idea. And if we could say that we'd have standard lengths people could exchange ... but we can't. The Blaxius^2 is either too long or too short.
Anyway message : that enthusiastic I now am.

---

The real reason of this post - and this too is occurring since 3 days : cymbals.

I don't know what happened or where it happened hence what now actually causes this, but the cymbals show something I was not prepared for, did not see coming at all, and did not know it even existed :

1. whoosh;
2. angle of hitting.

Although #1 seems easy to explain, I think it is not because the nomenclature for it possibly has died out. I think it is a thing from the past and possibly even only "Dutch" :

de cymbaal (bekken) zuigt lekker
  or very freely translated :
the cymbal nicely sucks.

I think you can see that I have problems with the translation, already because the phenomenon seems to have died out. Possibly it is even an analogue thing. The "sucking" is literal but I dedicated it "whoosh" ("sucking" is literal and in a very positive sense). It's an inside out sound and will be about how the cymbal develops its sound when the edge of it is hit (not too loud because we'd have the "crash" sound). The color of the sound changes; it also gets louder underway and when it dies out the color changes again.
Of course in real life this sound is there, but from "a stereo" I never really saw it happen. Now it does all over. And it just flipped-in (3 or 4 days ago).
Precisely together with this, #2 emerged and this won't be a coincidence (read on).

#2 is something which is so, so important (I now see) that it can be considered an other dimension again. But how to bring this across ...
An attempt :

Envision a rock drummer. He does not have one cymbal only (like a Jazz setup often has), he has several. He will have one (or more) to the left of him and he will have one (or more) to the right of him. What he can do with this is hit the one after the other with one hand by twisting his wrist. Envision the stick hitting the one cymbal and after that the other while the stick has been twisted a 180 degrees. He is not doing this continuously (left-right-left-right) but it is a reoccurring sequence with one left-right only. Now :
First off, such a sequence never even occurred to me and you can well say that this is because the two hits blend too much. Oh, you may hear two hits all right, but not that it will be from the same stick. So there it starts ...

In whatever I listen to now, I hear the cymbals to the right and to the left and under what angle the cymbal is hit. This is also related to the angle of left and right with the same hand, will not be the same. Hard to explain, but this is about how "deep" the edge of the cymbal will be hit, assumed it is the edge which is hit and which already not necessarily is so when the wrist twists for the 180 degree different hit. But the deeper the cymbal is hit (say the stick hits the edge more towards the hand) the softer and darker it will sound (this stick is more thick there and there's also less momentum).
What comes from this all is that you suddenly see the drummer sit and how he moves to do his act.

The logic of the #1 and #2 occurring together : well, logic, because #1 already tells about how the cymbal develops its sound, which is 100% related to where and how it is hit. So if that works, #2 is bound to work as well. At least this is my explanation of it.

I could try to add a #3, but this is only new during this writing and with that it is theory : there's now a clear differentiation in color of one cymbal hit.
Eh ...
So yes. If you follow my spouting about cymbals and color and too white or too China or too small etc. etc., and you could read back on all this, you'll always observe the same : it is or this or that. Is it ever right ?
Virtual excerpts of that :

- The cymbal seems to be too white.
- The cymbal sounded ugly; this improved.
- There's more color in them now.
- They are too long; throats will spit with them.

If I may start with the latter :
They are now longer than ever and it does NOT happen because of the Lush^2 config which implied that (because I am not using that config).
There is no spur of overly detail (no spitting anywhere), while they thus still sound long.
They sound long while (mind you !) they die out and even come back. Just like reality. Well *that* is new.

And about the other two bullet points :
It is not in order because they develop color underway. The "develop" means : it just changes from hitting to dying out.

So you got that, right ? But now envision how ALL of the sound is influenced by whatever similar "appliance" because when it works with a cymbal, it will also work with a voice and a guitar and a piano and a floor tom and a sax and a violin and ... what not.
So this is what I mean with : I lost my reference. Nothing compares any more.

One thing I will add because it keeps on being in my mind :
Two days ago I was already focusing on this and on what to play to enjoy more of this fantastic sound. I envisioned Angie (Stones) and this thus because of the cymbals alone. I don't know why exactly (I really never play the song) but I "saw" something. And so I did. I even announced it over here in the room, as in a "watch this".
No, nothing appeared to be there as how I envisioned it - the cymbals just aren't there to begin with. Or at least not in the first 2-3 minutes when I stopped it already. But still ...
IIRC in the first 45 seconds somewhere there's this opening and closing hi-hat. It is a one time thing. Jagger and all played at realistic levels. But this hi-hat appeared halfway between me and the speakers, oriented to the right and say 1 meter under the (3m) ceiling. Louder than I would be able to play the hi-hat myself. The specialty of it was the full image of the hi-hat. So not a sound, not a particular part the remainder left for your brain to work out. No, a spooky hi-hat of the right size, but way too loud. Jumping at your like a ... wasn't it Halloween ?

All I can envision in aftermath is that the hi-hat was way too much amplified, because, well, it always is. This has to be so because else it is underwhelmed by any other cymbal or snare or guitar etc. etc. It is a weak thingy that won't express much sound when not touched with the stick (only open and close by means of the pedal). Btw, here (Angie) the stick was in order all right.
Summarized, this hi-hat in Angie completely failed. It jumped out like an elephant. Still nothing in itself was wrong with it.

If there's one time when I dare to say "things really start to work !" it is now.
Maybe you see better now how early in this post I said "I don't know where to look". But man, how interesting this is ...

Peter

Hi Ramesh - Although I know what you are talking about, I don't think this will be related to any ^2 shielding for better performance. At least that is not what my message is. This is merely about how the system itself generates the RFI (including the cabling) and how to protect from that. Both from the outside (into a cable) as well as from the inside (cable emits).


We're starting right at this time on yours. Managing before the end of the day (UPS deadline) seems tedious, but it could ... If so, prepare for Wednesday, otherwise Thursday.


Sadly, the "from of tomorrow" appeared not to be working out with the customer himself not present. So his Blaxius^2 arrived all right, but he is out travelling for a couple of weeks.
The "few more" this week, should apply, though.

Regards,
Peter

OK, that was easy.
Anyway, a first is already at her owner by now and it is not me.

High Resolution link

From Ethist^2 via Ethernist^2, we named her ET^2. More tentacles than ever.

So no, it was not so easy at all. This is because when we apply shielding as such, the shielding must also try to be effective. And this does not happen much by wrapping a screen around a able (and an other and an other).

The above can be combined with the sheer fact that Ethernet (or the cable, never mind it is used for Ethernet or is "abused" for outboard i2s connection) officially does not carry a shield which connects to the (plastic) connectors and from there to the device chassis. But this one now does !
So technically we made it a completely different beast.

The white (cotton sleeved wires) you see in the photo are the "end to end" connections for the chassis grounding. Thus, envision that the eyes / washers at the end are screwed to the chassis of e.g. a network streaming device for the A (source) side of the cable. And the other (B) end is connected to ...
Nothing !
We feel that a shield to be effective it should be (or can be) connected to one side (device) only. But is it then not allowed to connect it to both devices ?

That depends ...

If the connection is to provide an Ethernet connection, then it shouldn't connect the two devices in involved, because Ethernet is inherently galvanically isolating. This is for a reason of course, so I'd respect that.

If the connection is meant for i2s, then the application normally requires device to device grounding connection. But wait, this is ground, which is not per sé the chassis. This depends really on what the manufacturers wanted to make of that (but my own idea of : not much thought of, but alas). Now when you'd formally connect the devices by this extra wire (which is what you could always have done) then at least what you prevent is the current of the two devices (ground) potential difference flowing over the data wires (the ground return wires of them).
Aha ...
And meanwhile, that connection is shielding, just like USB was designed. But also : like with USB it is perfectly allowed to connect the screen/shield to one side (device) only; the shielding will be as effective, but in a different fashion (which, as we now now by definitely sure, makes a quite outrageous audible difference - see the Lush^2).

And so the ET^2 is almost more vigorous than the Lush^2; It undoubtedly improves the connection as such because it adds a dimension. And, if you use the ET^2 for normal Ethernet, then nothing wil break really if you use the ground connection at both ends. It is only that Ethernet was not designed for that, and that by guarantee you will break the galvanic isolation Ethernet had in mind.

So all is up to you.

Of course you understood that the Black wire(s) which normally connect to the ground in - or chassis of the connector(s), now connect to the cotton-sleeved ground wires. Thus, it would be perfectly allowed to connect each of these wires to the respective devices, but decide later which to connect for real by means of applying the respective Black wire to the bridge connector (the connector with the red dot you see in the photo(s)). And of course you again caught that the shield (or shields) to use for the device-device (half) connection, is completely up to you.

High Resolution link

While those connection-eyes are for the mere permanent connection, in the package you will also find a pair of crocodile wires so you can more easily test what works best for you. Just connect to an eye on one end of the crocodile wire and the other end somewhere to the device.
But there's a pitfall : The cotton-sleeved ground wires itself are shielded ! This means that the crocodile wires - which are not shielded - may deteriorate an otherwise good ground connection (it may catch radiation (RFI) easier). So always expect a technical (and with that possibly audible) difference when you tested with a crocodile wire and later make it permanent but screwing the eye to some part of the device.

Questions ? don't hesitate.
Peter

PS: For extra fun and possibilities, it would be allowed to connect the ground wires to themselves (and not to a device at all). Of course you could try all the various internal shield connections with it ! 

Me again ...

First off I am the most happy to announce that from of tomorrow I won't be the only one spouting about Blaxius^2 idiocy. Better : then I will get help doing it.
And a few more next week. 

Here is my own config which may not change soon :

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

(remember, L> = Lush^2 and B> = Blaxius^2)

"Whether I had changed something" the question was yesterday. "Yes a new cable" was my answer.
OK, I changed the config ...

Last mentioned configuration (one but last post) in the end did not make it. I found the highs too much "tearing" which in the end is cause by the Lush^2 config (A:B-Y & W-R, B:B-Y & W-R). Too much high mid. Or : takes out too much goodie of the Blaxius^2 - not sure.
After first changing the Blaxius^2 to A:B-R, B:B-R it seems to worsten. But it also had something. And so I tried the combination I put down above, and hey ...

I am not sure where it exactly changes things, but let's say it is a mad house thing because, well, it is. I will try to give an example.

Look below, Ring Ring Ring from De La Soul (on De La Soul is dead). This suddenly starts out with a riff I have never heard. OK, so far so good. However, when I talked about it outloud, I was told "oh yeah, that was there all right because I was waiting for it". Well, that will be so, but then in a fashion that I totally don't recognize. Probably it was there as a sound, now it is there as a riff (with the characteristic of hearing all the strings stroken).
But while this what I noticed as a first, this is not the reason for posting. This reason starts 20 seconds or so later in the track ...

What these (De La Soul) guys most often do, is making the sound explicitly LP like. I am not even sure why this is (because they're from the still existing vinyl era (at first) anyway) but I guess this gives the sound a certain flavor which in the end makes them recognizable. Say explicit bad sound (noise, huge wow / flutter) while the SQ in itself is very OK. Now :
This track has the LP ticks almost throughout. Mind you, like an LP which was a 1000 times thrown with. Thus full with scratches.
What the guys back then (1991 in this case) forgot to think of, was 2018 and an ^2 application from some idiot. So what they couldn't hear is that by now those scratches come so loud forward that they are louder than the remainder music and text. "Something is broken" was thrown at me. But no.

So this is what can be done today and with this example, which is a sound fairly on its own, we can see how somewhere in the more lower frequencies a square sound emerges to so super square and loud that you can't believe it is right. Still in each situation I carefully listen what would be wrong with it. But I don't see it.
N.b.: I mention "lower frequency" because that is what vinyl ticks become when they are severe scratches. When not so severe, they are much higher frequency ticks only. Well, how this Ring Ring Ring was at first.

The complexity in explaining is that it is
a. about super fast lower frequencies which
b. emerge to higher frequencies.
Notice : super fast = super transient = super square.

This phenomenon in itself I mention at least for the 2nd time in this topic, maybe the 3rd. Something got blazingly fast and while the highs (at least in my system) were already that, it is now the low frequencies following all BUT shown by the support of more highs.
Can you follow ?

A much longer time ago, suddenly the metal of the upright double bass started to emerge like crazy. Maybe people remember this (I think this was an NOS1 thing but not sure). Well, this is real highs and not what I mean (also, I did not notice a change there yet - maybe I play too few Jazz). What I mean is the support of highs to low frequencies. Yesterday I heard this one again :

wow-wow-wow-wow
from a synthesizer. So again the vibrato in it where I never heard it. But I carefull listened and the effect is imposed by higher frequency. So *that* part I actually never heard. And again : is that fundamental (!!) high frequency ? NO ! It is the squareness of the fundamental (of say 100Hz) which now is worked out to real harmonics (200Hz, 300Hz, etc.) and them even interactibg with each other (in oscillating fashion) and there you have the wow-wow-wow-wow.
Oh, seeing myself writing this : the wahwahwah's are also a continuously occurring effect. Thus, the well known wah effect (pedal). It is so fully expressed while ... the whole pedal was not there before.

What I noticed with this particular config (but mind you, from one few hours of listening only) is that this time no bass is there where bass should not be. Some times this can come across as sheer lacking bass, but I don't think this is the case for real. What it does though, is yet again emphasizing all there is, which actually was overwhelmed by the bass to some extent. What I anyway clearly noticed and which makes me very happy, is the now *not* present "buzzz" in the bass. I think I described that with the other Lush^2 configuration and with normal Blaxius(^1) while the Luch^2 config with B-W Blaxius^2 at both ends showed too much bass although not disco like. This time (yesterday) I had no remarks about the bass at any time, unless it would be about the bass really be lacking somewhat (which is possible).

An other notice which could be a logical one :
I am used to my system requiring warm up of 20 minutes. At 9 something starts to happen but at 20 all is fine (and all is on 24/7 but does not play outside of listening hours);
For the so many-ith time, I yesterday noticed that maybe the required warm up is largely extended now. The logic of it would be that all is so much "accurate" (FWIW) hence pin pointed, that the slightest being off (when cold ?) is audible (as a form of distortion). Otoh I consider that it requires getting used to.
There is no way that the highs are too loud or anything because as said (quite often by now), it is about the lower frequencies shows square hence harmonics. These harmonics are not profound hence do not hurt or anything. But they seem to make the sound more grey when all is cold. I think this is not an unknown phenomenon to most, but if you first try to envision a full bodied sound with harmonics you are not used to (read : how can you know what I am referring to) and next all this "addition" shows grey, then the warming up needs to be more thorough hence longer. When this has been done, all what remains is a room full of sound. Really.

Speaking of which ...
An other notice is that there now is a clear differentiation between recordings which don't show ultimate high frequency and which come across far less "stereo" separation plus they clearly exhibit a required sweet spot (you can hear the highs increase for level - something I am not used to at all), vs the recordings which were made with more attention to where sounds must come from and which exhibit *more* stereo.
Both exhibits come together in my view, when we'd see that highs are more pinpointed indeed (thinner beamed, more accurately represented in mid air) and when left and right are the same with it, all adds up right in the middle and there only. On the other hand, when highs were thoughtfully separated in the left and right channel, it exhibits exactly the other way around : all gets more spacious.
So what I perceive if this, is all very well explainable to me, is not a downside, but is more "mono" for the mere "stupid" recordings (sadly I must mention the same De La Soul album again, as an example of that).

Peter

All right. Envision :

You play Talki Walki from Air and each of the tracks you never heard before.

You play Faithless, track 01 - Bombs, then track 02 Spiders [...] ask the people in the room whether they ever heard it. Answer was No. Then towards the end of track 02 a very recognizable sequence of sounds occur, and I asked : "Still not ?" Big surprise because indeed I played it a maybe 50 times.
I said "wait, I'll help you" (because now track 06 - Last this Day was coming up). First 20 or so seconds, no recognition anywhere (also not by me). Until Dido starts to sing and this can't be missed.

Of course this wasn't about others who never heard it, but about myself checking against others. It is just freaking unbelievable.

Everywhere it is for a majority about the same thing : deep vibrato in all kinds of instruments and voices. And hey, I forgot to tell about the electric pianos. Like the Rhodes which plays at Riders on The Storm (The Doors). Even the Hammonds like from Jimmy Smith are capable of showing the vibrato explicitly, while it already was there (obviously, for a Hammond).

Day before yesterday I was shocked about John Lee Hooker - I Cover The Waterfront. At least this is normally recognizable but the now deep flanger going on throughout. This is so much so, like with say a difference of 6 dB more and less all the time (make it 3dB and I won't exaggerate) that again it reminds me of the "beating" (did I talk about that in this topic ? not sure). WehwWehwWehwWehwWehwWehw (one Wheh is about 1 second long).

That this all can happen is one, but that this just wasn't there before is down right spooky in itself. If you'd hear it side by side (OK, one after the other) then you'd bet a million some processor (DSP) suddenly is at play.

This is all still Blaxius^2. It is the biggest change in sound ever. And mind you, what I was used to against Blaxius^1 was "just better". And many of you would agree. FYI : World wide the Blaxius^1 is appreciated as an interlink which sounds even far better than anything people know (and spending multiple 1K on a pair of interlinks). Right ?
Yeah, so be it. Now try Blaxius^2. It transforms your complete system. All new, all different, all better. And in there the same cable resides ?
Yes.

But outside of Blaxius^2 we also have the new/old Lush^2 configuration I talked about in my previous post. Because this gives emphasis to the mid (high-mid / low-highs) you see the strange combination with the all so super tight / straight for example strings. Again hard to explain. But a metal guitar string, not further moved, sounds as straight as can be. Especially not when it is an electric guitar without acoustical body. It is the opposite of vibrato and flanger. And mind you, I talked about this more than once, though in the Lush^2 topic and thus for this A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R config (I did not look it up, but I am pretty sure it was about this one). So we have the super straight mids now combined with the all so musical lows. This combination is of a dimension that can't be expressed. OK, the analogy with this comes to mind : an Italian hors d'oeuvre which is about hot toast and something hot on it, but with cold tomato and herbs on top. It is hot and cold at the same time and for that reason super special.

This "straightness" brings a clarity unheard. Yesterday I played example after example because I can make up in advance where it works explicitly. There's too few time for this hobby now because all is a super surprise and while it is 8am here right now, I am already longing for the 10 hours from now. All this beautiful music you heard all of your life is suddenly completely new and all for the so much "more". You have no idea ...
OK, so you think you have eh ?
No. No matter how much I try to bring it across. No. As long as you won't even be able to recognize any of the tracks of Talki Walki, triple No.

Peter

Hi Coen,

The only experience I have is that the Ethist^2 can most probably be ordered from of tomorrow because then we will have a picture for the webshop.
Otherwise it is that today we all had a day off or else it would have been ready right now.
Price can be thought of the same as for the Lush^2 for the shorter lengths; at which lengths it will be available depends a bit on how things work out tomorrow but hopefully long also and then at not crazy prices.

Over here (Phasure) we do not have any experience with it and the Ethist^2 has been made because people request it. A bit of the same as how it went with Blaxius^2 and in the end for sure also how Lush^2 emerged; I reject a couple of times until I start to see that maybe things may work.
So an Ethernet cable ? be my guest !

Regards,
Peter

And do I did. For even three evenings by now.

The result is more unexpected than I expected () because
a. The Lush^2 quite strongly overrules what the Blaxius^2 "does";
b. The result implies that we must be talking about a mutual influence.

Ad b.: Which is exactly what I have been saying all along, although that was more in between the lines and an expectation.

---

Changing the Lush^ to the more higher-mid (lower-highs) focused balance, just readily brings back all the goodies of that Lush^2 configuration, though now sauced with the Blaxius^2 configuration. Not the other way around as I expected it. Thus envision :
The Blaxius^2 setting in combination with "a best" Lush^2 setting implies a quite (highs) rolled of sound, that in itself implying a heavily filtering Blaxius^2. This with the notice that this was relative to the Original Blaxius. Still you can hear that it is not normal filtering as such because it is not about lacking highs. It is about "low-highs" which are under that. Thus :

Lush^2 with A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R config
Blaxius^1
    A. gives a sound which is heavily low-highs focused.

Lush^2 with A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R
Blaxius^1
    B. gives a most enjoyable sound which is accepted by all, also those not using Blasxius^1.

Lush^2 with A:B-W-Y-R, B:B-W-R
Blaxius^2 with A:B-W, B:B-W
    C. gives a way darker sound, but super most palpable and seriously bringing music (see previous post). Low-highs seems to lack for music focusing there.

Lush^2 with A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R
Blaxius^2 with A:B-W, B:B-W
    D. almost brings back the situation of Blaxius^1 (see config-combi A above)

Now on the latter :

"Almost" means that the enjoyment didn't feel different from the sessions playing with the "darker" and all so musical sound, but with this combi all really "worked" again for me, meaning that I had no-where anywhere the slightest idea of a stuffed ear feeling and this in itself allowing to play may ambient again. But better : it brought back the longer cymbal I think I talked about for this Lush^2 setting in particular.
I was all over happy again.

But it isn't really about that ...

If we observe the transition from B. to C., it is the conclusion that the Blaxius^2 with that config, filters.
But does it ?
If we next observe the transition from C. to D., where the Blaxius^2 does not change for config, the filtering is suddenly undone ?
Nah, that can't be.

And thus it must be so that the two cables now influence each other. This with the notice that both at least cross at the DAC's output end and that we may expect radiation (patterns ?) to be at play there.

Back to what I said elsewhere :
The configuration possibilities of the ^2 cables - and then looking at one on its own - will be implying

1. a different radiation pattern from inside of the cable to outside;
2. a different level of radiation capture of the cable itself from environmental devices;
3. a kind of recursive effect will be in order when the cable can also captures its own radiation field; now both 1. and 2. are in order already for the cable itself.

Ad 3.:
Which is similar but different to combined radiation fields from *and* environmental devices *and* from the cable itself
where
the "environmental device" is that other cable. Like Lush^2 vs Blaxius^2. And the other way around which makes the relationship already recursive (sort of) in itself.

So wow.

Sound of this combination

New nomenclature L> for Lush and B> for Blaxius.
(E> and C> coming up soon - haha)

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

Maybe the first what occurs is the again more firm bass. And mind you, I recall from the Lush^2 config alone that the bass could be with too much energy (could buzz at a higher frequency than actually being in the music). Deep down earth bass is now the result for some music (this is readily noticeable) and otherwise the bass is super throughout. This was not zo with the same Lush^2 in the same config and Blaxius^1.

The second what occurs is the all over present highs again. Not only the low-highs being represented again, but also the longer highs/cymbals (possibly this is the same thing).

The great fun with this combination is that previously both the Lush^2 application for this config combined with the Blaxius^ on one hand and and the Lush^2 regarded best config by all (see B. config more above) combined with the Blaxius^2 config we see in C above) ... eliminates the downsides (to these ears) of the former. So, two birds with one stone ?
Maybe.
But for now I have the hunch that this is no coincidence and that the both just interact (see above on the radiation fields) and that there's a balance in that too.

The sound is just all over superb with a now musical flavor of the Blaxius^2 in a, mind you, actually one-tried config only. Of course this was a kind of given by the last tried with the Lush^2 regardless, but still. This is just the beginning ! (I'm confident).


Yes ! That is why the photo below is from yours. Official production version.
Btw, left 5 minutes ago ... Due tomorrow.



High Resolution link Blaxius^2 01

N.b.: This is the configuration for the Digital application (for now). My description and configuration more above was from the Analogue application.

Peter