I can’t weigh in on the sonics merits of these two pieces (though I do own a piece of Allnic gear) but have a different observation and a suggestion: the audio press, such that it is, rarely does "shoot-outs" of comparable gear for many reasons. And, as demonstrated by this thread, it isn’t that common for a single user to have had side by side experience with two or more units for comparison purposes. (One commercial magazine review does stick in my mind as a benchmark- it was a shoot-out of high end line stages some years ago by HiFi+- with in-depth reviews, comparisons and second opinions on the merits. It rang true to me because I owned one of the units in question and the observations concerning that piece were ’spot on,’ as the Brits say).
So, my suggestion: Some years ago, a bunch of car enthusiasts wanted to have a serious comparison of aftermarket exhaust systems, something a mainstream car magazine was unlikely to do. By consensus on a forum, owners of various exhaust systems loaned them to a third party who performed the "tests." In a few instances, a manufacturer stepped up to loan their product for review. One piece- a RUF- was quite expensive and I made a deal-- I’d buy it and loan it for the test if I had the right to return it for a full refund if the test didn’t prove out in its favor. RUF agreed. The test was done --- about 1/2 dozen different products were compared by the third party with results published. This was like a "crowd sourced" reviewing process. Granted, much of audio reviewing is subjective by nature, so perhaps it wouldn’t work-- system dependence and all that, but the established audio "press" can’t do any better in that respect, and most of us suffer the same problem of "system constraints"- so why not have the community attempt to undertake this? I suppose the risk of damage through shipping or mishandling of a equipment is a factor, but this could go a long way toward answering some of these X v Y questions, which come up constantly in audio.
