Buy a Lumin U2X or keep the Esoteric N-03-T

Audio Gear Talk Lumin
1

I have a five year old Esoteric N-03-T connected to an Esoteric SACD player by USB. The transport is in RAAT mode.

Would there be an improvement with the new Lumin U2X?

2

If your goal is maximum sonic performance, many reviewers have stated that the U2X is one of the best pure transports available today. But if your N‑03T is performing flawlessly and you’re happy with RAAT, the upgrade may be more about refinement and features than a night‑and‑day transformation. Perhaps you can find a dealer willing to lend you the U2X for a test drive.

3

I own a U2X and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

As previously said, your best bet is engaging your closest dealer and try for yourself.

I think refinement is the right word.

4

Thanks.

I use a Roon NUC which is connected to a switch, as is my streamer, which in turn is connected to my DAC by USB. How did you connect your devices please?

5

My NUC, running ROCK is in another room and connected to my LAN via ethernet.

My U2X is connected via fiber to an SOtM sNH-10G network switch in my rack.

The U2X is connected to a Chord Electronics Dave Dac via USB.

6

As both device did their work completely in the digital domain you will not get any audible improvements. So the only improvements you can gain would be features your old device did not have and you are missing.

7

Here we go.

8

Interesting. Do you find the fibre connection improves sound quality? My dealer was suggesting trying that out with the OmniLan switch.

9

Thanks. Originally, I plugged my Roon NUC straight into my DAC. I found that adding the transport into the chain improved sound quality. Do you think that all transports, given adequate hardware quality, sound the same?

10

I have never tested fiber vs copper. Some people enjoy the testing but I don’t and at least in theory, the fiber is the better connection. So I went with it and haven’t looked back.

Sorry my answer isn’t very helpful.

11

Yes, digital data has no sound. I also don’t question if my excel files contains better numbers if I transport them via fiber or copper. Why should I do that if the file contains bits and bytes that could recreate sound if feeded to a DAC.

12

The digital file itself doesn’t change, you’re absolutely right—bits don’t have sound and a FLAC file doesn’t become “better” over fiber or copper. Where streaming hardware can matter is not in the data payload but in the conditions under which the DAC receives that data.

Devices such as the Lumin U2X differ in how they handle clocking, electrical noise, output stage design, and network isolation. None of these alter the bits, but they can influence jitter and noise at the DAC’s input, which affects the analog reconstruction.

So the file stays the same; the environment around delivering those bits to the DAC doesn’t always stay the same. Whether those differences are audible depends on the system and listener, but the mechanism isn’t “better bits”—it’s cleaner conditions for the DAC to do its job.

1 Like
13

If your DAC is affected by such things you should try to get your money back!

And you should not listen to snake oil dealers. They try to create audiophile angst with false claims.
TCP network communication is packet based. Which means all data is send in packages and written in a buffer on the receiving side. This makes clocking issues and jitter impossible. And a Cat5 network cable is isolated by design.
Otherwise streaming services could not transport a stream other thousands of kilometers passing thousands of (non-audiophile) switches without any quality loss.

1 Like
14

Knew this was coming.

Transports make a difference and if your experience has been different then please share. We dont need to have specs/industry standards brought up though.

My U2X sounds better than my previous U2 transport. I dont know why it seems to upset some people though.

1 Like
15

No disagreement that TCP guarantees bit‑perfect delivery — that’s never been the debate. The audible differences people discuss aren’t about corrupted packets or missing bits, but about the electrical environment the DAC sees once those packets arrive.

Buffers eliminate data‑layer jitter, but they don’t eliminate electrical noise, ground contamination, PLL recovery behavior, or phase noise at the DAC’s input. Different transports measure differently in those areas, and some DACs are more sensitive than others.

So it’s not ‘better bits’ — it’s the conditions under which the DAC has to reconstruct the analog signal. That’s all I was pointing out.

16

Science is not an opinion!

17

Science is time driven opinion. Like when the scientific opinion was the earth is flat ruled somewhere in time.

18

I’m out. Too much voodoo for me.

19

Transport technology and product vendors should demonstrate that their low-noise, etc. engineering adds value when connected to a range of DACs (or class representative ones). The same is true of cable vendors. It’s a pretty easy process that can be done with free software and affordable ADCs. If they do that then these beliefs are warranted and their value proposition stands.

20

Its demonstrated by plugging the device in and doing a listening test. This is the only real test that matters.

How would you test a car? Reading a spec sheet or getting in and driving the thing?

We have crossed paths before so I pose a new question for you. Why do many people insist on trying to “educate” others and why not just let someone take thing home demo and try? Also, if someone is happy, why do they have to somehow prove why that is to others?

1 Like