Poor Allnic Dubious honour of worst measuring DAC ever for Stereophile

[microstrip]

I can understand that added harmonic distortion and gritty noise can give the illusion of greater reality and happy for people who go for this sound

But it's the digital section that's at fault

And it's either

1 designed in to improve the sound quality by the engineer and thus measures that way
2 sounds better that way and it's a happy design accident

3 it measures poorly cos it is poor SQ !

Only one of these three opinions shows deliberate design intent

If there is design intent for this measurement

Let's hear what it is ?

I think that is a simple request

IMHO it is not a simple request. I have no doubt that high-end products manipulate the signal in the good sense - either enhancing some cues or eliminating unfavorable parts of the signal in a way that it helps us to recreate perceptions that are normally lost in audio systems. There are always compromises - it is why we have such diversity in high-end. However this manipulation must create this feeling of approaching real and enjoyment systematically for a significant number of audiophiles.

For marketing purposes, most manufacturers will claim "neutrality" and "fidelity" to the "source" - each claims to be more neutral than his rival. Only a few, such as Pass or D'Agostino, openly admit that they manipulate the signal. Did you notice that we mostly debate the poor measuring equipment that sounds excellent? Curiously no one risks debating the excellent measuring equipment, showing great differences in sound quality, not explained by the measurements.

BTW, if obliged to pick one of your possibilities I would pick 1. designed in to improve the sound quality by the engineer and thus measures that way But would add - they are looking to a way of making it measure better without affecting the sound quality.

 

[awsmone]

Totally agree with you

But be nice to know?

I guess it comes down to whether your going for musicality by superb engineering

Or musicality by correct ingredients

Although stereos have improved over time it's seems to be a combination of technical improvement and artistry re Kondo with quality ingredients

Since this dacs deficiencies are on electronic / dac side I am pretty worried about the intent

With the lampizator he eschewed current technical engineering in favour of simplicity

I respect and admire that

The Allnic uses sabre dac with something else and valve output

So what is the intent of the "something else"

The playback eschews dacs in favour of FPGA which are musical

Everyone agrees this works

Koch meant it to be this way
And knew it would measure so great

What about Allnic?

They claimed initially it was damaged ?

So that to me means

Either

It was broken hence get it retested like Zanden did or...

Or it measures like **** did they know ? Did they care ?

The response seems to indicate they didn't

But what was intent of this dac ?

That's my point

 

[Geardaddy]

For marketing purposes, most manufacturers will claim "neutrality" and "fidelity" to the "source" - each claims to be more neutral than his rival. Only a few, such as Pass or D'Agostino, openly admit that they manipulate the signal. Did you notice that we mostly debate the poor measuring equipment that sounds excellent? Curiously no one risks debating the excellent measuring equipment, showing great differences in sound quality, not explained by the measurements.

Well said. Another engineering friend of mine who is also a seasoned audiophile stated that there have been very few true breakthroughs technologically in audio over the last 25 years. The true breakthrough has been in marketing.

 

[Geardaddy]

Not that I am aware but you have seen the results from the L4 test at Hifi-Critic from 2 years ago…we discussed it at Audiocircle. It was quite respectable.

The only take home message is that Allnic had a poor result and may need to address it with some design changes. Trying to cast a wider net is just obfuscation, especially as it seems its the digital section that has problems and tube or SS output stage would thus be irrelevant.

The Lampizator 7 needs a review with measurements. Would be interesting to see how it differs from the 4s results of which I am familiar.

 

[wisnon]

The Lampizator 7 needs a review with measurements. Would be interesting to see how it differs from the 4s results of which I am familiar.

Why because Allnic all of a sudden wants company? LoL. Why didnt Allnic do their own tests before sending the unit off to Stereophile?

The lamp 7 does not even have a listening review yet, so why clamour for a Stereophile-like review, when I dont see such mags lining up to do reviews on small boutique outfits. Lots of Dacs out there like Empirical, etc that dont have such reviews but the owners really like them.

 

[awsmone]

My understanding is Stereophile insist there are five brick and mortar dealers for a review

Clearly everyone likes the sound of lampizator. And it has a definite design ethic for DSD

My point with Allnic it seems on face value to be a sabre dac and DHT and measures not well

They claim it was faulty tubes but others state the problem is in digital section

When Zanden had an issue they sent a replacement unit for review

Why didn't Allnic?

 

[Orb]

That "we want our women with lipstick" as Ki once told me as he explained why a tape copy of SACD sounded so good.

That is a good one
Cheers
Orb

 

[Geardaddy]

Why because Allnic all of a sudden wants company? LoL. Why didnt Allnic do their own tests before sending the unit off to Stereophile?

The lamp 7 does not even have a listening review yet, so why clamour for a Stereophile-like review, when I dont see such mags lining up to do reviews on small boutique outfits. Lots of Dacs out there like Empirical, etc that dont have such reviews but the owners really like them.

I did come across an end users measurements comparing the 4 and the 7 (http://theartofsound.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-32378.html):

15-05-2014, 18:31


Compared to the 4, which I thought didn't have much scope for betterment, it is quite clearly ahead. I volume matched using pink noise. Yet still somehow the 7 sounded louder. It is extraordinary - it just sounds like so much more signal is getting through to the ears.

Then after what'd rjs and I had concluded about the bass, constant neurotic swiching between DACs and material, which we didn't do during our sessions, led me to the conclusion that the 4 really wasn't that far behind it in the bass. The real leap in performance seems to be in the mid and especially the upper mid/treble region.

I became convinced that the frequency response was tailored as the 4 generally sounded quite a bit brighter. I got the Umik mic out and did a system FR of the 4 versus the 7. They were pretty much bang on each other's backs apart from higher in the HF region, 2 DB or so offset in the 7s favour for loudness. I hadn't pink noise volume matched, but it did show that higher up the 7 and 4 converged. That does mean the 7 is a tinsy bit rolled off. But nothing like what I thought I was hearing.

It simply seems that the nature of the 7s HF playback is just a LOT more refined, with the 4 sounding comparatively much more incisive.

 

[Geardaddy]

My understanding is Stereophile insist there are five brick and mortar dealers for a review

Clearly everyone likes the sound of lampizator. And it has a definite design ethic for DSD

My point with Allnic it seems on face value to be a sabre dac and DHT and measures not well

They claim it was faulty tubes but others state the problem is in digital section

When Zanden had an issue they sent a replacement unit for review

Why didn't Allnic?

Agreed. It is a little odd....

 

[wisnon]

GearDaddy,

I am all over that thread, go read it in its entirety. I would not call that a real measurement set though and also it was on an older 2 box L7 that is no longer made (plus limited tools). Its all B7 now.
Dont worry about measuements though, as I hear it will be solved soon.

 

[Geardaddy]

GearDaddy,

I am all over that thread, go read it in its entirety. I would not call that a real measurement set though and also it was on an older 2 box L7 that is no longer made (plus limited tools). Its all B7 now.
Dont worry about measuements though, as I hear it will be solved soon.

Norman, measurements would not sway me one way or another. Just intellectual curiosity

 

[Geardaddy]

Sensible approach from the dude at CAD (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...-cad-1543-digital-analogue-converter-16797/):

Quote Originally Posted by coleb13 View Post
The British publication HiFi+ has a brief but intriguing interview with Scott Berry, the founder of Computer Audio Design.

I think it's interesting to hear someone who spent many years at Tektronix say they don't believe in measurements.

Meet Your Maker: Hi-Fi+ Visits CAD (Computer Audio Design) | Hi-Fi+
Hi coleb13,

I just noticed this was here. Thanks for the mention! Yes, I do believe in measurements, but just not that much for audio. In my opinion measurements are useful to make sure you haven't made any gross errors (which I do quite often) when starting a new audio design and of course during the manufacturing process. But for getting that last 20% in sound quality that makes some audio components "special" the best measurement tool in my experience is your own ears.

Scott Berry

 

[microstrip]

Sensible approach from the dude at CAD (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...-cad-1543-digital-analogue-converter-16797/):

Quoting the article "The key is to stop thinking about the computer as a ‘computer’ and think of it as an audio component." .

 

[wisnon]

Norman, measurements would not sway me one way or another. Just intellectual curiosity

Drew, I know that. Just passing on some info.

I have no problem with measurements per se…if we know what to measure and do indeed measure the correct things. I am far convinced that we do indeed measure the right things, and that s due to our enduring ignorance of much of the science involved. Read Dr Geddes' article at his websirte where he said the same thing.