My New Lumin

[Mike]

Though about it. If the DAC is is so good, I fail to understand why no dig inputs. I use more than one digital device in my system.

Thx!

Mike - I asked Li from Lumin this question, here is his response on "why no digital inputs":

* Digital inputs on the Lumin would have added an additional 1 year or more of product development time and costs, a bigger chassis too.
* The approach to adding digital inputs would have meant that we would have had to look at the Lumin as a standalone DAC. There is no such thing as a good standalone DAC BECAUSE a DAC, by definition, is connected to a source device, a CD Transport or Blu-Ray player, iPod or PC/Mac with USB. So even though you THINK you have the best DAC, your source will still SUCK!
* Adding digital inputs adds all kinds of noise and interference that comes through the digital input connection, not to mention data corruption and timing issues (jitter) coming from the input signal!
* Adding digital inputs would mean that Lumin now is in the business of troubleshooting all kinds of PC Windows or Mac hardware and software problems. This is much bigger than the initial NAS setup and UPnP/DLNA server software (minimserver).
* Why do we need another DAC? They are inferior and the market is flush with hundreds of DAC's. What's the point of comparing another DAC to all the 100's of DAC's out there now?
* At Lumin, we are a group of audiophiles who want the best digital playback and we feel that the best digital playback is from a network music player. We also believe this is the future.
* The Lumin is a pure network music player and it is a standalone device. The physical network connection is always galvanic isolated. The Lumin takes the original digital audio data signal from the actual audio file in perfect original bit by bit. It's the original bit by bit. The Lumin then does ALL the processing and decoding, using our hardware and our software designs and programming. Therefore, we ensure all the parts work at the best operating condition.

 

[joeinid]

The proof is in the pudding

 

[rrwmd]

Thanks for asking this question, which is only natural for many us to wonder about.

Li's answers are very logical and complete.

 

[volks]

this little streamer sounds…with off the shelf parts no less!
.

I understand what "Off the shelf parts mean to a point, but forgive me i am a bit confused here.........is this product OEM? Does Lumin make Lumin? Where is the product physically made? or do you mean the parts inside are "off the shelf parts" like most gear.

 

[Mike]

Mike - I think I know what Mike means. I think he is referring to the DAC chips. They are Wolfson DAC chips and not proprietary DAC chips like the DAC2X has and DCS too.

Mike? Yes?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[mdkim]

Yes that's what I was referring to.

 

[volks]

Yes that's what I was referring to.

Kool :happy:

 

[the professor]

Great answers

Mike - I asked Li from Lumin this question, here is his response on "why no digital inputs":

* Digital inputs on the Lumin would have added an additional 1 year or more of product development time and costs, a bigger chassis too.
* The approach to adding digital inputs would have meant that we would have had to look at the Lumin as a standalone DAC. There is no such thing as a good standalone DAC BECAUSE a DAC, by definition, is connected to a source device, a CD Transport or Blu-Ray player, iPod or PC/Mac with USB. So even though you THINK you have the best DAC, your source will still SUCK!
* Adding digital inputs adds all kinds of noise and interference that comes through the digital input connection, not to mention data corruption and timing issues (jitter) coming from the input signal!
* Adding digital inputs would mean that Lumin now is in the business of troubleshooting all kinds of PC Windows or Mac hardware and software problems. This is much bigger than the initial NAS setup and UPnP/DLNA server software (minimserver).
* Why do we need another DAC? They are inferior and the market is flush with hundreds of DAC's. What's the point of comparing another DAC to all the 100's of DAC's out there now?
* At Lumin, we are a group of audiophiles who want the best digital playback and we feel that the best digital playback is from a network music player. We also believe this is the future.
* The Lumin is a pure network music player and it is a standalone device. The physical network connection is always galvanic isolated. The Lumin takes the original digital audio data signal from the actual audio file in perfect original bit by bit. It's the original bit by bit. The Lumin then does ALL the processing and decoding, using our hardware and our software designs and programming. Therefore, we ensure all the parts work at the best operating condition.

 

[MDP]

That is exactly why I've always thought streamers are more musical.

 

[Mike]

That is exactly why I've always thought streamers are more musical.

You were definitely an early adopter and bang on!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[still-one]

Mike - I asked Li from Lumin this question, here is his response on "why no digital inputs":

* Digital inputs on the Lumin would have added an additional 1 year or more of product development time and costs, a bigger chassis too.
* The approach to adding digital inputs would have meant that we would have had to look at the Lumin as a standalone DAC. There is no such thing as a good standalone DAC BECAUSE a DAC, by definition, is connected to a source device, a CD Transport or Blu-Ray player, iPod or PC/Mac with USB. So even though you THINK you have the best DAC, your source will still SUCK!
* Adding digital inputs adds all kinds of noise and interference that comes through the digital input connection, not to mention data corruption and timing issues (jitter) coming from the input signal!
* Adding digital inputs would mean that Lumin now is in the business of troubleshooting all kinds of PC Windows or Mac hardware and software problems. This is much bigger than the initial NAS setup and UPnP/DLNA server software (minimserver).
* Why do we need another DAC? They are inferior[/B] and the market is flush with hundreds of DAC's. What's the point of comparing another DAC to all the 100's of DAC's out there now?
* At Lumin, we are a group of audiophiles who want the best digital playback and we feel that the best digital playback is from a network music player. We also believe this is the future.
* The Lumin is a pure network music player and it is a standalone device. The physical network connection is always galvanic isolated. The Lumin takes the original digital audio data signal from the actual audio file in perfect original bit by bit. It's the original bit by bit. The Lumin then does ALL the processing and decoding, using our hardware and our software designs and programming. Therefore, we ensure all the parts work at the best operating condition.

Mike
Interesting and informative answers supporting their position. I will have to say that I am not sure what he is trying to convey with his point regarding Why do we need another DAC? They are inferior

 

[Glareskin]

Mike,next time you fly through Dallas schedule a 3-4 hour layover,and I'll come pick you up !!

Shoot! You are in Dallas... I was there two weeks ago and it crossed my mind that N. Texas could be Dallas. Next time I will send you a pm.

 

[Mike]

Mike
Interesting and informative answers supporting their position. I will have to say that I am not sure what he is trying to convey with his point regarding Why do we need another DAC? They are inferior

"There is no such thing as a good standalone DAC BECAUSE a DAC, by definition, is connected to a source device, a CD Transport or Blu-Ray player, iPod or PC/Mac with USB. So even though you THINK you have the best DAC, your source will still SUCK!"

 

[still-one]

"There is no such thing as a good standalone DAC BECAUSE a DAC, by definition, is connected to a source device, a CD Transport or Blu-Ray player, iPod or PC/Mac with USB. So even though you THINK you have the best DAC, your source will still SUCK!"

If that is what they are trying to say I find that position ludicrous. There are some excellent "source" transports and "source" devices for holding your files to choose from. The DAC is key device for processing that information.

 

[still-one]

Mike
Just to clarify I am not questioning the SQ of the Lumin products. I haven't spent any time with them so I am not qualified to comment on SQ. From what several of you have noted here on the site, their performance is top notch.

 

[Mike]

If that is what they are trying to say I find that position ludicrous. There are some excellent "source" transports and "source" devices for holding your files to choose from. The DAC is key device for processing that information.

What I think he is saying is that going digital out from a CD player into an external DAC is INFERIOR to a network music player. Its not a CD player vs Network streamer debate. It's Transport to DAC via USB or digital/coax being inferior to a network music player for the reasons he cited. The DAC has to deal with the incoming signal - from wherever it is by whatever method it is, deal with the excess noise, timing (jitter), etc.

 

[Julot]

I'm no real engineer and I don't play one on TV, but having wrapped my head around those questions for a few months now, here's what I understand and why network players make more sense than Mac'n'Dacs.

On your NAS, there is a bitperfect file. Once you start moving those bits, at least two things happen to them in the cables: there's noise (electric and electromagnetic) on the (by definition analog) signal that carries the digital signal and there is jitter or time distortion. As long as you're transferring files, it does not matter because there are algorithms and software to check and check again that the data is unharmed and that your file is still bitperfect.

Then you turn your files into a stream of bits that are for the converter chip to turn into music. Now, for that chip, it actually matters if there is noise and jitter, and it will impact the final result. So that last link in the digital chain is the weak one, the one that you can't fix with more upsampling, reclocking, or smart algorithms.

If that's correct, then the streamer logic makes a lot of sense -- connections inside the streamer are super short, interference and noise can be controlled in the best possible manner. In a SPDIF signal, you have lost the possibility that you have in asynchrone USB or Ethernet to have bitperfection -- which can be unconsequential but you're still gonna have jitter that will force you to re-clock before you lose bits, and noise that you will try to filter.

I think that's what Mark Jenkins of Antipodes explains at the bottom of this page, and this seems consistent with what Li says and what Linn does (also no dig input on the LINN DS).

 

[MDP]

Shoot! You are in Dallas... I was there two weeks ago and it crossed my mind that N. Texas could be Dallas. Next time I will send you a pm.

Please do !!

 

[MDP]

Yup, thats my understanding Julien.

 

[wisnon]

I'm no real engineer and I don't play one on TV, but having wrapped my head around those questions for a few months now, here's what I understand and why network players make more sense than Mac'n'Dacs.

On your NAS, there is a bitperfect file. Once you start moving those bits, at least two things happen to them in the cables: there's noise (electric and electromagnetic) on the (by definition analog) signal that carries the digital signal and there is jitter or time distortion. As long as you're transferring files, it does not matter because there are algorithms and software to check and check again that the data is unharmed and that your file is still bitperfect.

Then you turn your files into a stream of bits that are for the converter chip to turn into music. Now, for that chip, it actually matters if there is noise and jitter, and it will impact the final result. So that last link in the digital chain is the weak one, the one that you can't fix with more upsampling, reclocking, or smart algorithms.

If that's correct, then the streamer logic makes a lot of sense -- connections inside the streamer are super short, interference and noise can be controlled in the best possible manner. In a SPDIF signal, you have lost the possibility that you have in asynchrone USB or Ethernet to have bitperfection -- which can be unconsequential but you're still gonna have jitter that will force you to re-clock before you lose bits, and noise that you will try to filter.

I think that's what Mark Jenkins of Antipodes explains at the bottom of this page, and this seems consistent with what Li says and what Linn does (also no dig input on the LINN DS).

Not really true. On a HDD or SSD, the software s laways moving data around, trying to optimize space and backup functions (like Raid 5, etc). This causes jitter to be embedded in your bit perfect file, which may NOT have been jitter perfect in the first place if it went over a network to your storage medium. However with SD card storage, this does NOT happen and thus is inherently jitter superior to a NAS for example. Then there is the issue of AMPLITUDE/waveform distortion….

Many layers to peel back in this onion and we are not at the centre yet.