Jump to content
psme

LUMIN - Audiophile Network Music Player

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, wklie said:

 

To use Lumin with JRiver, in Tools / Options / Media Network / Add or Configure DLNA Server, add 24-bit Audiophile DAC.  Turn on the option for Bitstream DSD (DoPE).

 

Hi wklie,

 

Why are you suggesting setting up JRiver's UPnP media server to transcode? Namely:

- Setting Tools / Options / Media Network / Add or Configure DLNA Server, add 24-bit Audiophile DAC -> this forces all PCM files (including lossless FLAC, ALAC, AIFF) at all resolutions to transcode to a 24-bit WAV file (at the original file's sampling rate - assuming you haven't engaged any other JRiver DSP);

- Turning the Bitstream DSD (DoPE) -> forces all DSD files to be transcoded to DoP contained in a WAV file.

 

In other words, given that the Lumin streamers can play lossless FLAC, ALAC, AIFF & indeed WAV PCM files and DFF & DSF DSD files natively from a UPnP/DLNA media server over the network, why are you suggesting that the JRiver UPnP/DLNA media server should transcode, especially for those PCM & DSD file formats, to 24-bit WAV and DoP as WAV, respectively?

 

John


We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cebolla said:

Why are you suggesting setting up JRiver's UPnP media server to transcode?

 

No.  With Mode set to Original, I think JRiver does not transcode the PCM files.

 

At some point in the past, I was sure that JRiver could not send DSD to Lumin unless DoPE was turned on.  If there is any JRiver development that changed this behavior, I don't know about it and I'll find time to test any suggested configuration.

 


Peter Lie

LUMIN Firmware Lead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, wklie said:

 

No.  With Mode set to Original, I think JRiver does not transcode the PCM files.

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying also needing to set the Mode to "Original" to make sure JRiver does not transcode.

Otherwise just using the default setting of the "Audiophile 24-bit DAC" DLNA server for the Mode, which is "Specified output format" (and given the default setting of Format is "PCM 24 bit"), would most certainly engage transcoding to 24-bit PCM!

 

 

45 minutes ago, wklie said:

At some point in the past, I was sure that JRiver could not send DSD to Lumin unless DoPE was turned on.  If there is any JRiver development that changed this behavior, I don't know about it and I'll find time to test any suggested configuration.

 

Possibly, but I've tested this since version 21 of JRiver and its UPnP/DLNA media server is certainly able to provide DSD files natively for streaming, if the Mode is "Original" and DoPE is off.

 

 

Which reminds me, I've previously posted about this, with a fair amount of detail, about the appropriate settings for JRiver's UPnP/DLNA media server to make sure it doesn't transcode, in the Streaming and Teac NT-503 thread:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/28322-streaming-and-teac-nt-503/?tab=comments#comment-672888


We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello to you all. 

 

I started experimenting with MQA playback via Roon and have a question about the format shown in the display of my S1. I use some L2 files that I put on my NAS for evaluation. When I playing these flies through minimserver the Lumïn display shows MQA playaback. But when I play te same files via Roon I only see the original 44.1 kHz 16 bit format displayed

 

In the earlier posts on the MQA functionality (this is a good moment to commend Lumïn for how they maintains their software and provide us with new choices in functionality) I can't find any mention of what the display should show when playing via Roon and I would love to get some reassurance that my Roon settings are right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, A1B said:

what the display should show when playing via Roon and I would love to get some reassurance that my Roon settings are right. 

 

Lumin supports MQA decoding when being used as a Roon Ready device using the RAAT protocol (in addition to its native OpenHome protocol via Lumin app).  Check the Lumin front panel for MQA decoding to take place.

 

I think there are two possibilities:

 

1. Check your Roon signal path, please make sure you're using S1 as a "Roon Advanced Audio Transport" (RAAT), not AirPlay.  Using  AirPlay will downgrade everything to 16/44.1.

 

2. It is possible for Roon to be playing the wrong version of your music.  You have to run the latest version of Roon (Build 247 or newer).  Check your Roon signal path and check the source file - it should state 24-bit MQA.  If you're seeing your source as 16-bit, please make sure you're not playing Tidal HiFi non-Masters, or a wrong alternative from your NAS.  If you intend to try Tidal Masters, they can look exactly the same as Tidal HiFi of the same album.  You may need to try all album with the same album art to find the 24-bit MQA version.


Peter Lie

LUMIN Firmware Lead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow wklie,

 

That's fast, thanks! It is good to know that the display should show MQA, also when playing via Roon. I am sure that I have the Lumïn set up as a RAAT. I also have the latest version of Roon, so I will have to check the settings of Roon. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi wklie,

 

With your help I determined the problem. One of the L2 sample files plays back as a standard Flac file through Roon though it is labeled as an MQA file. The other MQA sample files I downloaded play as MQA through ROON.

 

I can't find the reason for this behavior (the same file plays back as MQA through minimserver), but it is not a big issue so I won't burden this thread any longer.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A1B said:

One of the L2 sample files plays back as a standard Flac file through Roon though it is labeled as an MQA file. The other MQA sample files I downloaded play as MQA through ROON.

 

I'll need to look into this and see whether it's a Roon bug or something else.

 

Please:

1. Post a link to the problematic file (or specify which one)

2. Post your Roon signal path

 

This will take some time though.


Peter Lie

LUMIN Firmware Lead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi wklie,

 

I found what I had to do. The standard CD quality album has been mislabeled as MQA. because of this ROON hid the real MQA file as a duplicate. After I turned on the "show hidden albums" option in the ROON preferences the real MQA file became visible :)

 

 

IMG_0386.PNG

IMG_0387.PNG

IMG_0383.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A1B said:

The standard CD quality album has been mislabeled as MQA.

 

This was a known issue with Roon Build 242.  However, Build 247 claims to have fixed it...


If this CD was added when you were running Build 242, when you upgrade to Build 247 Roon will need time to re-analyze the music it previously determined to be MQA.

 

If you added this CD after running Build 247, then this may be another bug.


Peter Lie

LUMIN Firmware Lead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I find very "strange" that people with high end Hifi gears are so interested in MQA that is a lossy format.

 

When lossy formats appear "better" than lossless ones on a system, it makes me consider acoustic/speakers/amplifier issues but never leads me to the conclusion that the lossy format is "better".

 

In rooms with acoustic issues, and/or poor amplification and/or poor speakers, MP3 appears also "better" than 16/44, as dynamic range is lower, with less bass and less treble, and finally less demands on room/amplifier/speakers.

 

Kind regards


Thierry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThierryNK said:

Hi

 

I find very "strange" that people with high end Hifi gears are so interested in MQA that is a lossy format.

:D  That made me smile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ThierryNK said:

Hi

 

I find very "strange" that people with high end Hifi gears are so interested in MQA that is a lossy format.

 

When lossy formats appear "better" than lossless ones on a system, it makes me consider acoustic/speakers/amplifier issues but never leads me to the conclusion that the lossy format is "better".

 

In rooms with acoustic issues, and/or poor amplification and/or poor speakers, MP3 appears also "better" than 16/44, as dynamic range is lower, with less bass and less treble, and finally less demands on room/amplifier/speakers.

 

Kind regards

If you take studio masters as the source, then both MQA and 16/44 are lossy.
MQA attempts to use lower bandwidth than studio masters, but more than 16/44 (so therefore loses less than 16/44) and focusses on what it feels are the most important aspects for human enjoyment. i.e. timing.

 

If I can get DSD or 24/192 etc formats, then I don't need MQA, but when the best streaming available is 16/44, then MQA should offer more. Even MQA in their talks at shows haven't been selling it as better than DSD/hires, just a better compromise that provides the streaming service with a lighter load, and customers with something better than redbook.

Unfortunately 'lossless' and 'lossy' have been used historically with respect to 'cd quality', so have lost their meaning when we are now talking about studio masters.


Associated with LUMIN - The Audiophile Network Music Player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK for 16 bits versus 24bits.

 

But....

 

From the frequency point of view, there is strictly nothing more between 0 and 22 KHz in a 192 Khz sampling than in a 44 KHz sampling.

 

This is the basis of sampling theory.

 

If you add that most microphones are limited to 20 KHz, as human ears are, then, if you can hear differences between 24/44 and 24/88 or above, it comes from elsewhere, a different mastering for example.

 

Take any 24/X tracks, downsample it to 24/44 by yourself, and post it somewhere. If you can hear differences, I buy you a bottle of Champagne.

 

Kind regards.

 


Thierry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, wklie said:

 

This was a known issue with Roon Build 242.  However, Build 247 claims to have fixed it...


If this CD was added when you were running Build 242, when you upgrade to Build 247 Roon will need time to re-analyze the music it previously determined to be MQA.

 

If you added this CD after running Build 247, then this may be another bug.

Hi wklie,

 

I imported the L2 files yesterday using Build 247. I suspect the problem lies in the specific L2 file. As you can see on the pic I added of the Roon screen during playback you can see that the audio file is shown as MAQ though it is not. 

 

Now that I have sorted this out I can start to evaluate the audible differences and determine my preference ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThierryNK said:

I find very "strange" that people with high end Hifi gears are so interested in MQA that is a lossy format.

 

Not strange at all.  If you're a Tidal subscriber, you get access to Masters albums for free.  Lumin pays for this so that user gets this functionality for free.  You can even try Tidal HiFi/Masters for free for 60 days as I posted two pages ago.  There are users who listen exclusively to Tidal and do not own or purchase hi-res files (same for Qobuz - Lumin also supports Qobuz Hi-Res).  Supporting the only better-than-redbook format of MQA from Tidal is of particular importance to them.

 

While this is a controversial subject, I encourage you to give it a listen.  I have received enough user reports who had reported improved SQ of some Tidal Masters album over the equivalent Tidal HiFi albums.  And as people pointed out, they suspect some albums came from a different better-sounding master.  You can also view this as getting free access to a better sounding master, even if you don't believe the SQ improvement brought by the technology.

 

If you (and any Lumin user of course) can give it a listen and post your SQ impression, be it better or worse than equivalent album from Tidal HiFi / own CD rip / Hi-res PCM / DSD / Qobuz, I'm always happy to read it.


Peter Lie

LUMIN Firmware Lead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

This is not controversial at all. These are facts about sampling theory.

The video "MQA music origami" by Bob Stuart that you can find on Youtube is just BS. 

 

Make your own comparison as I did for years on hundreds of tracks. Donwsample them by yourself from 24/X to 24/44 and listen... Never trust downloaded 24/x and 24/44 or 16/44 tracks. They are so often coming from different masterings.

 

And you can downsample to 16 bits, because if you have the chance to listen to the microvolts coming from bits above 16, your system is part of the 0.001% that are able to achieve this.

Mine is not capable of this: room acoustically treated, Jriver UPNP on a Mac Mini, Ethernet Filter, Trinnov Amethyst, NAD M2 and Vivid G3.

 

Kind regards

 

 

 


Thierry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MQA is controversial, and it seems that it has it's 'haters' as well as people who like it.

I've listened to a lot of MQA since Lumin were kind enough to support it, and it has genuinely surprised me.

Putting the 'science' aside, whether-or-not it's 'lossey' etc, when I listen to MQA, and compare it to a High-Res 24-bit stream of the same album from Qobuz (I subscribe to Qobuz Sublime+, as well as Tidal Hi-Fi), to my ears and in my system, MQA does sound better in a lot of cases.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

You talked earlier about "Chicago 17"

There are at least 6 different masterings of this album as you can see here: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=chicago+17

 

Do you know which mastering you compare between MQA, Hi-Res, etc?

 

 

You are fully allowed to put science aside.

 

You are also allowed to scratch your head wondering how taking off information can lead to "better".

As I said before, on a lot of systems, MP3 sounds better than 16/44.

 

A small trick to finish with. 

As you use a Lumin D1, you should activate PCM/DSD conversion.

Not because DSD is a better format than PCM, but because the WM8741 chip is more noisy on PCM than on DSD as you can see on a simple diagram as this one wm8741blkdiag_mag.gif

 

Kind regards


Thierry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ThierryNK said:

Hi

 

I find very "strange" that people with high end Hifi gears are so interested in MQA that is a lossy format.

 

When lossy formats appear "better" than lossless ones on a system, it makes me consider acoustic/speakers/amplifier issues but never leads me to the conclusion that the lossy format is "better".

 

In rooms with acoustic issues, and/or poor amplification and/or poor speakers, MP3 appears also "better" than 16/44, as dynamic range is lower, with less bass and less treble, and finally less demands on room/amplifier/speakers.

 

Kind regards

Maybe we just want to hear MQA for ourselves instead of having others tell us MQA is crappy.


The Truth Is Out There

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThierryNK said:

Hi

 

You talked earlier about "Chicago 17"

There are at least 6 different masterings of this album as you can see here: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=chicago+17

 

Do you know which mastering you compare between MQA, Hi-Res, etc?

 

 

You are fully allowed to put science aside.

 

You are also allowed to scratch your head wondering how taking off information can lead to "better".

As I said before, on a lot of systems, MP3 sounds better than 16/44.

 

A small trick to finish with. 

As you use a Lumin D1, you should activate PCM/DSD conversion.

Not because DSD is a better format than PCM, but because the WM8741 chip is more noisy on PCM than on DSD as you can see on a simple diagram as this one wm8741blkdiag_mag.gif

 

Kind regards

I take what you mean about Chicago's '17'. I've also tried other albums, such as Prince's recent remaster of 'Purple Rain' (24/96) and Paramore's 'After Laughter' (24/96), and in these two cases, IMO MQA Tidal Master sounds better.

And thanks for the info about the D1. I'll give it a try. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mav52 said:

Maybe we just want to hear MQA for ourselves instead of having others tell us MQA is crappy.

 

You are also free to evaluate Voodoo as in this video. Above 22 KHz, there is no audio, for microphones reasons first, even at a zillion KHz sampling. Moreover, human ears cannot listen above 20 KHz in the best case.

 

 

So when someone starts its pseudo-scientific marketing by lies, lack of knowledge, confusion or deliberate will, it is also my right to report it.

 

After that, you are free to test whatever you want.

 

Kind regards.


Thierry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ThierryNK said:

 

You are also free to evaluate Voodoo as in this video. Above 22 KHz, there is no audio, for microphones reasons first, even at a zillion KHz sampling. Moreover, human ears cannot listen above 20 KHz in the best case.

 

 

So when someone starts its pseudo-scientific marketing by lies, lack of knowledge, confusion or deliberate will, it is also my right to report it.

 

After that, you are free to test whatever you want.

 

Kind regards.

Why screw up a good thread that is about Lumin products with MQA mumbo jumbo and WHYS its not worth it.  I've heard Stuart MQA sells spill at the various audio shows, left me with a headache so I do not need any addition mind benders.  PS Its up to Lumin users to decide if MQA is worth it or not.  


The Truth Is Out There

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...