Robert - Interesting ...

I would say that the Crack Detect setting is unable to influence sound (quality), but if I read what you just wrote ... :

The Balanced Load at 18 is a "tricked" one. All under 43 is. Maybe you recall that ever back under 43 was not allowed because it did nothing. Until that changed and I recall it was about Windows 10 or some Build of it. It allows the processor to be tuned all the way to about 0Hz frequency BUT one has to check what happens for reality responses, because it can be too slow. For example, 430Hz is still workable, but one step lower (which goes by several steps in the Balanced Load because one step does nothing) that ending up at 300Hz and the PC becomes unresponsive and what I recall ... erroneous.
Point is also that this depends on the processor.

The combination with the Nervous Rate is almost even more interesting (for your description) because it tells how fast the processor adapts to a "more speed" request. Thus, if it runs too slow (notice : while it runs at an about fixed speed anyway), the Nervous Rate tells how often to look to adjust the speed. Think in terms of 1ms vs 1000ms (mentioned figures are not absolute) with the idea that 1000ms is equal to "never" (in the terms of this domain) - and which is not meant to let error the system, but to let it behave in steady fashion instead of being "wild" en nervous.
This gets complex when we see that the numerous other tasks in the system (which can be 1000s) also need their "time slice" and while they are being kept out of the door (because the system does not respons fast enough) in the end the OS itself may fail on accomplishing whatever it is.

Summarized, it looks like you, Robert, are able to let the OS error, possibly up to the sense of not being able to process complete audio words and a few bits are chopped off, *because* an other process on the same thread (so to speak) received priority and it has to continue. Example of this in general, is the audio not being allowed to speed down. This can be solved by the system to keep track of the speed but chop off complete samples, while more internally and detail, also bits can be shopped off. Both are as illegal, although the skipping of samples would be acceptbale, as long as it isn't about charachters in a Word document.

I must add that shutting off Crack Detect does not help a thing in avoiding the real cracks (because of incomplete audio words or whatever) BUT that the process of checking for Crack Detect is an additional read of the complete stream (though it goes per chunk). Thus one could say that while the processing of the file for that part takes a certain amount of processor cycles, the checking (Crack Detect) for it to be OK takes maybe 10% more. Apart from that possibly influencing SQ to begin with (all processes do) it also requires 10% more of the processor and that just could underwhelm what's necessary.
So if your processor runs at e.g. 500MHz and just can cope, then this "feature" actually requires 550MHz which isn't available. And together with the Nervous rate at a highest number, also not a little bit and at least too late (the system does not detect that the processor must speed up a little).

This is a lot of hoopla and blahblah, but a means of explaining the situation you ran into.

Regards,
Peter

Gerard, maybe your last activities on/for that laptop caused a Windows 10 update ? Or, that happened earlier already but you never tried RDC since ?

Look here :
CredSSP policy change - no RDP possible.

Eh, good luck !
Regards,
Peter

So here we go ...

Day before yesterday I thought to change my as of then config A: B-W-Y-W, B: B-W because no matter how greatly surprising it could be at times, I felt it had to be "wrong" but also and merely, the highs were a that too smeared for my liking. I mean, I know of better situations (regardless Lush^2) with the highs, and then also the conig prior to the just mentioned did that, but too much of it (too white).

So in I went with a fairly random but "just another" A: A: B-W & Y-R, B: B-W-Y-R. Thus at the source (A) Inner connected to connector, and at the target (B) all connected to the connector. Well ...
No.
Maybe I am wrong. but from the few similar permutations I tried, I recall that everything which connects at the target end but not on the source end, is odd for sound. Thus, something like : what is connected at the target's end but is not at the source end, kind of literally backfires towards the source end. Mind you, this is a line of thinking I adopt now, hoping for some logical reasoning.
The sound of this is super short and super dry and possibly it could have something, weren't it that the basses become unrecognizable of it and the highs show raspiness (like interrupted 200 times per second). My notes (and you should keep notes too !!) tell that there's also a whole lacking "lower highs" area. And oh, it is the first time on this forum that I am compelled to talk about "lower highs" (whereever that exactly is).

Then a next one came in soon, A: A: B-R, B: B-R. Aha, look, you can see that I now start to think from mere logic reasoning. Thus, instead of working with the Inner connected to the connector(s) I now thought to for a first time use an other - the Outer. Thus, at both ends the Outer connected to the Connector and that's all. It showed.
This should be the most similar to the original Lush, at least to my ears and remembrance. Maybe a tad less special than what I heard from my original Lush, and/but for me outside of the Mach III Audio PC (but I am using the Mach III). Anyway, better than the proposed and supposedly theoretically best Lush^1 resemblance - using the Inner to connect to both connectors. Theoretically because nothing much physically changed to the Lush^1 now, except for all the additional layers of Shield and Isolation.
After hearing this - nothing wrong with this and people should start out with this (read : we should ship the Lush^2 with this, perhaps), I can reason that the setup of the cable could resemble the Lush^1 because the Outermost shield is the one which is connected. So indeed, for the Lush^1 this would be true too (because there is only one shield it would be the Outermost, right ?).
I listened to this config for the next two hours, before the say was over. My idea about it : nothing wrong with it, but most certainly also nothing special with it.

Then yesterday came. Long before the playback session of the evening I had already written down a new A: A: B-Y & W-R, B: B-Y & W-R. And with this, I forced nyself to find configs "with reason". And well, this one is about the thought of balance, and how the Middle shield connects to the both connectors, that shield in itself protected by and surrounded with the two other shields. The "protected by" is quite explicit, because if those two, Inner and Outer would also connect to the connectors, it wouldn't be protective (in my electrical view and thinking). Thus, both the Inner and Outer shields just open ended at both sides, BUT connected to each other and thus not to the Middle shield.
And really, at the first hit (I am serious !) you can hear it is right.

This one, so far, has it all. It shows superb bass which also sings (see earlier post). It has highs which are "normal", but which somehow manage to squeeze out even more detail all over (read : actually continuously and not only "occasionally"). All, really all contains new sounds while at the same time music as such is playing (this latter is THE task). The electric butterflies are there, meaning that the spookiness is all over there again, but this time never in a way that you'd think : right, nice, but this has to be wrong.

What is completely new is what I think exactly lacked at the first config I wrote about in this post : an area of lower highs which now is profound. It makes electric guitars show a super steadiness, opposed to flanger (hopefully it is clear what I mean here). It is also the area where leannes could happen - as I now learned. Something like : if there's a profound top end but right under that there's a relative nothing, we might experience this as lean. Make that the other way around and the sound becomes full, with as key the top end still being there as much as before (or otherwise the stuffed ears feeling becomes profound).

Somehow this config not only comes across as correct all over and balanced all over (which would be the same thing) but also as technically behaving consistently over the whole (audible) frequency range. This in itself would be the same as "balanced" but this latter is only the expression of the behavior (and how we perceive it). Thus, while this shielding is somehow attacking frequency areas, this config attacks all areas similarly, or, does not inluence them similarly (this is about what actually is the culprit in there - which we or at least I don't know yet).

If there is one thing that could be improved upon - after my observation of 3-4 hours of listening to this - it is mentioned now more profound lower highs. I mean, I like that very much, but the toilet test shows that exactly these frequencies are heard best being in the toilet, behind two closed doors down the road.

I will listen to this for several days now (unless something starts to annoy) and for those who like to experiment faster than me, my next one undoubtedly will be this one : A: A: B-Y & W-R, B: W-R. This disconnected the Middle from the target (B) connector and leave it open. The "protection" of the other two shields remain as they were.

Peter

I think I found a new "best" again ...

Well Fred and others ...


Fred is up to the next task, and Dave may not be coming around soon again (he feels teased). So Fred, get out your tools and apply this :

Move the inner memory DIMMS (the both closest to the processor heatsink) to the outermost free slots.

So we want some fun eh ?
Let us know whether you still see 48GB of memory after the change, or that all broke except the hammer. If the former, try more superlatives (or not, as long as it is honest).

Best regards,
Peter

What was the percentage ?
So you know, this gets a bit dangerous because say bourbon of 40% now will become 40%^2. Fysiologically this may bring some problems, while physics tell me it can't even exist.
All I can say is that because you were with 2, you can devide the 40^2 by 2. But I promise : this doesn't help much.

Peter

Tim,

My latest config (see post above somewhere) is IMO merely leaner than the original Lush.

Kind regards,
Peter

PS: What I also intended to write yesterday, with the Roger Waters album, is that it now suddenly was "ultimate psychedelic". Thus, while I find Roger Waters too much playing the sounds from the past (and for that it not being really new music) the added sauce now suddenly was Obscured By Clouds psychedelia in Twin Peaks format. Really a whole new level of presentation but so much of it, that I can't imagine that the shield of a cable is doing this.

Let's not forget, this "wah" presentation is only since the latest configuration of the Lush^2. It has a directly connected inner shield and a middle and outer shield that connect at the source (PC) to the inner shield, while these two are left open at the other end. Hmm ...

The pitch dropped a little ... But how can that be ?

I forgot to mention something from the Zuma album and Cortez The Killer (or Danger Bird because I played that too) : talking guitars.
I came at this right after I posted yesterday because I heard it again in an other song and we discussed it over here. So a guitar can talk to you (intentionally through its player) mostly via the wah-wah pedal; without it it can also be done to some extent. So all the "wah" ever so much comes forward suddenly. Try The Yes Album - Yours is No Disgrace and you have it almost throughout (if the lead guitar plays).

The wah is a (fairly fast) change of pitch but also a change of clarity, mostly from dark to light (so to speak). Wait ... : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wah-wah_pedal
Maybe someone can make something of this. I will read it myself, later.

I so much recall that the Neil Young track(s) suddenly were addressed to me and were loaded with an other dimension of data towards me, only because the play of the guitar was this other/new messenger.

What I was also listening for yesterday, after posting, was whether this now again was another level of "analogue". Thus, more into that again. I didn't want to listen for that, but at some stage it happened that I heard it and from then on I started watching it. Right now (during this typing) I come to that again because of recalling distinctly that guitar speaking (to you) from a way long time ago. Thus, a fairly normal thing but it just has disappeared from my music playback. So, was that LP perhaps ? (and I am not talking about one with the hole not in the middle, that also changing pitch ... hmm ... ).

Anthony, if possible, talk a bit more. Let your imagination flow, if possible. How can this be ...

Peter

OK ...
What I notice from my previous setting (still in my Sig) is that the dynamic range somehow is enormous. Note that I didn't say dynamics as in transient, but just the difference between soft and loud. And I am quite confident this is about the being more black in general (not easy to explain). Did you notice it ?
This makes even more of it :

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

This means that all shields are connected at the A connector, also connected at the A connector itself,
and that only the Inner shield is connected to the B connector (middle and outer float).

Well ... This is the fourth day that I am listening to this, always thinking it is wrong somewhere. But is it ?

My initial impression is that it makes all too low on volume. Second thinking learns that again more dynamic range is at play. But it is not about this ...
I have a continuous feeling that things play inside out for phase, or whatever it is exactly. And talking about a version of spooky ... this is now Twin Peaks sound in most of the tracks which lend themselves to that somewhat. I just played Roger Waters - Is this the Life we really want, from of track 06. All Twin Peaks stuff. And was it that before ? not that I recall.

What I recognize with this config as well, is that the tone/frequency has a musicality. It is not as stable as I know it from familiar tracks. As if vibrato is added (not flanger). Very strange because I wouldn't know how that would work.

Albums which, again, lend themselves for it, sound like 20 minute Edgar Froese tracks from ancient history. I never play them any more because it is always the same. So how come that a. such tracks now start to sound like that and b. it only intrigues ?

Yesterday I played Neil Young's Zuma and Cortez The Killer never sounded so emotional (of Young) like this time. It was the very very best version of it I heard ever, and I play this for something like more than 45 years, maybe once per 2-3 months. I am serious.

So why is it wrong ? I don't know ! But is seems to me and my ears that at times all fades away to too few of most (only leaving one profound sound of melody).
Help ?
Why is this the 4th day with this without the slightest idea of wanting to try the next config ?

Peter

Thank you for sharing that, Ramesh.

Peter

Man man man, Ramesh ...
I won't say "if only I could have found these words" (like I said similar to Fred), but there is so much 100% truth in each and every word you wrote down there. Unbelievable.

The phenomenon of bneing startled of a sound and then especially related to something which could really be there in the room, is a known one (at least for me it is). Ever back this started with crying babies where you in a split of a second look around to see where this baby is (this is all unconscious stuff). Later it happened with more sounds, the more the system improved. And lateLY it happens almost continuously. Last night ? I think 5 or 6 times in 90 minutes of time. And then exactly as you say for the examples.
For me it is part of the "spookyness" and it is only that I never thought of writing about it. This, while numerous times you don't understand what happens, look around in the room (everybody doing his thing so it weren't them) and some times more than startling (more heart attack like). So how could I forget to mention it.


Yesterday I had this experience of a woman singing, so so clear and pure (hey, for a well known track, so go figure) that I thought "if this can still be improved upon then I don't know how". So just this simgle element of this singing, of which you can hear, sense and even see that there is nothing to lack.

Not reading back into your super texts and just thinking of what happens to me over here ..., here it is so that then there breaks a glass, then someone opens a door, then something is dropped, then so undefined thing breaks, then there's a siren, watching out of the window but nothing to be seen);
The difference with how it previously was could be testified by the latter example. So I hear this siren, see nothing anywhere, so it has to be in the music. I G-D can't even prove it really, other than noticing that in reality it is not happening (no police car to be seen) or did not happen (can't find a broken glass). And, because this is happening with so many sounds now (all in music you played a 100 times before) it is different than the baby example, because from the baby you kind of know it is not there anyway (OK it was, ever back ) while the police car really can be there daily, and I must say that more glasses break than desired, as well. Etc. This, Ramesh, is how it makes your description so good and compact. It is all in there (I think).

Is this an other dimension ? YES.
I think I already referred to that in a previous post. Possibly I called it "universe". Anyway, I related it to new audio phenomena required because the normal descriptions don't suffice any more.

Thank you so much, Ramesh.
Peter