You see correctly. I thought that I had tried it, but I hadn't. (I will do though!)

Mani.

Yeah, I already determined this (edit: actually not exactly the same, but similar) back in September:


Mani.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to everyone!

Mani.

I tried this, but there seemed to be quite a loose connection between the original Lush^2 cable and my NOS1 B75 - so much so that the NOS1 wouldn't be recognised unless I physically lifted the Lush^2 at the NOS1's input. This is really strange, because I'd been using this exact cable with this exact NOS1 with no problems for the last few months.

In any event, the new Lush^2 fits snugly into the NOS1 B75... and my old Lush^2 fits snugly into the non-B75 NOS1 in my office. So I'm stuck with listening to the Mach III, the Lush^2 and the Blaxius^2 all breaking-in together in my main system. With the way things sound at the moment, this isn't any hardship  .

Mani.

A quick update...

I played full-scale white noise through the system (with amps off!) for a few hours before taking another listen yesterday evening. The sound seemed to have swung in totally the opposite direction. Much 'thicker' than before, and some 'LF bloom' now. I can understand how this might cause someone with well-extended speakers to want to reduce the LF a bit. But in my setup, with my non-assisted speakers, it's welcome.

Right now, I'd say the sound is pretty much on par with what I had before, with my [clock-upgraded] Mach II and original Blaxius cables. It's tauter than before, but with a tad less sparkle. But it's still very early in the settling-in process, and I suspect there's a lot more change to come (hopefully for the better).

Mani.

Thanks Anthony.

(BTW, how are your speakers coming on - all complete now?)

Mani.

Hi everyone, I wanted to start a new thread to share my experience with my new chain:

Mach III -> Lush˄2 -> NOS1 B75 -> Blaxius˄2 -> MHz bandwidth mono amps

I think this makes more sense than contributing to the existing threads, which tend to talk about these components separately, as I think they all work together to form the particular sound I’m now hearing.

Firstly, I want to say a massive thanks to Ciska for putting most (all?) of these components together (especially the 8m Blaxius˄2 cables, which must have been a real pain to do), to Peter for being the out-of-the-box thinker he is, and to Paul who I’m sure also played a part somehow.

I spent the whole of yesterday laying the 8m Blaxius˄2 cable pair under the floorboards of our 130-year-old Victorian house. Ordinarily, this should have been a reasonably straightforward job – I planned to use a simple BNC socket-to-socket adaptor to connect one side of the old Blaxius to one side of the new Blaxius˄2, and gently pull on the old Blaxius from the basement, with Satty (my wife) feeding the new Blaxius˄2 from above . However, a couple of years ago we had 100mm insulation blocks installed directly under the floorboards between all the joists. The installers did a great job plugging all the gaps between the joists, so much so that they totally jammed the old Blaxius cables solidly against the joists. No way they were going to budge. Unfortunately, the basement doesn’t sit directly under the listening room – there is just a 1.5 m void under the listening room. So I had to take the floorboards up, take out the guilty insulation blocks, feed the Blaxius˄2 cables into the basement as I had originally planned, and then replace the blocks and floorboards. This took me pretty much 8 hours of constant, ultra-dirty work.

Totally exhausted, after showering up, I managed to hear the first sounds from my new chain at around 10pm.

My first impressions were of an incredibly clean and taut sound. Absolutely no bloom anywhere now. Instruments taking an eternity to decay. Sparkle and beauty everywhere. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything like this from any system anywhere.

BUT… where had all the bass gone? I wasn’t expecting this at all, as most reports in other threads suggested that switching to a similar chain produces more bass than before, and not less.

I think the key is in “no bloom anywhere now”. Also, I had literally just switched everything on and taken a listen, so no warm up of components, let alone any burn-in.

My suspicion is that I have the basis of something really special, but I think it’s going to take some work to get the sound I want. I intend to document my journey and the evolution of the sound in this thread.

Once again, a massive thanks to Ciska, Peter and Paul. We’re all very lucky to have stumbled on Phasure – there is simply nothing else like it out there.

Mani.

 

Mani.

 

Mani.

Haha...

What if you tell her (him?) that she can make them over a much longer period of time than usual?

Anyway, I probably won't be in a position to place an order for a few weeks (dependent on when a certain Euro client gets it's accounts payable act together).

Thanks for the forward thinking/planning though.

Mani.

Thanks Peter.

So 10m of Blaxius^2 is totally out of the question? (Actually, I'd probably get away with 7-8m.)

Edit: Just read,"Would you like 20 meters or even more ? no worries because the Blaxius^2 will perform the same as if it were 1 meter. But better have some deeper pockets..."

I'll check my pockets

Mani.

I'm back to A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-R.

My previous A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-Y-R sounds too 'dense', too 'thick', and as a result, just too uninteresting.

I can't believe what a difference floating the Y shield at the B connector makes. I hope someone can figure out exactly what's going on because this simple change changes the sound completely.

Mani.

I don't doubt this for a second Ramesh, and I'll no doubt get hold of a Mach III at some point. But for now, the Mach II is fine... especially considering that my Mach II is no ordinary Mach II (see signature )

Mani.

Hi Ramesh, yes I had been using A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-R for quite a few days before yesterday and was very happy with it.

If you think about it, my current A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-Y-R is very close to Peter's config - it just 'closes' the Y shield too. Yes, this seems to take away some of the magic from the sound, but replaces it with even more solidity.

I'm trying to figure out what effect having a shield connected at A but floating at B has on the sound, and whether this sounds natural or artificial. What I'm finding (I think) is that if you start with A: B-W-Y-R  B: B-W-Y-R, and then progressively float W, W&Y, W&Y&R at the B end, you will hear a progressive increase in this 'unnaturally holographic sound' that I mentioned earlier. Having just one floating, as in Peter's config, seems to provide just enough of the effect for it to sound interesting and not to bother.

This is all conjecture at this point. Lots more playing around and listening required.

Mani.

I tried a few configs today.

1. A: B-W-Y-R, B: open

Wow, what a crazy sound. Almost holographic. Very appealing for first few seconds, but then sort of disorientating. A bit vague - not anchored.

(It's a similar feeling I have when I'm sitting in the aisle on a plane - I really don't like not having a reference (being able to look outside the window and see the ground) when taking off and landing especially.)

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

More solid. But still slightly unnaturally holographic.

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

I think similar to 2, but I need to go back and check.

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

I had a slight preference for this over 2 and 3, but I really need to go back and check.

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

This is giving me the most pleasant sound. All traces of an 'unnaturally holographic' sound have gone. Just a really nice, balanced and anchored sound. So this is what I'll stick with for now.

I really need to do a lot more listening. But for now, it seems to me that having any shields connected at A but floating at B introduces an unnaturalness to the sound. This seems to become progressively more pronounced the more shields you connect in this way.

When I have more time I'll try some other configs.

Mani.