Ciúnas DAC USB DAC Review

[Ciunas Audio1]

If there was a time to make the comment you are making, this is NOT it.

In other words, Gearbulky, Amir didn't appreciate your honesty & unbiased post as it reflects badly on the forum & him

 

[BDWoody]

Why do you keep saying 7yr old dac and dead battery.

That's all he's got... It's either that or admit it's crap, even though that doesn't make sense to most.
You have to go with it...he doesn't really answer questions because... Amir...

 

[Ciunas Audio1]

We have no intention whatsoever to ruin your business. Using instrumentation and photography, we are simply showing the audiophile community what is inside the gear. What comes out of that is up to you.

As garbulky posted "Well if it was me, of course I wouldn't send Amir a new DAC after the reception I got here - there is a lot of unprofessionalism here. When dealing with manufacturers I would suggest treating them all equally with respect and consideration. I think the only reason for this behavior I've seen boils down to "he deserves it" which is a poor excuse. "

You might wish to reflect on this Amir for the sake of the forum?

 

[Krusty09]

You maybe correct it may perform better by leaps a d bounds and Amir maybe completely wrong but you have not shown and evidence of that with either old performance tests or any other tests. Can you provide some test info that you did when you made the dac 7 yrs ago. I think this would help people and you.

 

[Ciunas Audio1]

True. This thread does have bit of a stank to it. But Ciunas Audio1 isn't doing much to break the deadlock either.

You mean breaking the deadlock by me answering questions & acceding to demands which arose after I pointed out the gross mistakes of this review? I believe the admissions & mistakes made initially & on which the whole review is based need to be corrected & addressed before anything can move on - this is the correct order in which matters get resolved. That is up to Amir

 

[Killingbeans]

Isn't that the point

No. The majority of this thread has focus on the highly questionable build quality. As long as you will not acknowledge that, people will have great difficulty in taking you seriously.

EDIT: Forgot that this wasn't one of the teardown threads...

 

[garbulky]

Although you might prefer that Amir emulate the Stereophile model, I prefer ASR's rebel "tell it like it is" attitude, where kissing manufacturer's butts is not the primary motivation.

I find it interesting that some local-yokel manufacturer of shoddy electronics with no academic or professional electronics background, and skills that appear to be lower then your average high-school science fair winner insists that he knows more than the experts. I have seen zero evidence that the subject of this thread knows very much about electronics compared to the wide array of electronics engineers and skilled and experienced audio experts who participate here at ASR.

From the perspective of psychology, "desperate flailing" is another phrase that comes to mind as I watch this thread continue.

Tell it like it is - no problem. I saw a lot of that when Amir was describing the flaws in the manufacturers arguments of impedance and aniodizing being sufficient.
But being a playground fight - not good. I mean, it's entertaining for the first few posts but then it just becomes a bunch of people b*tching and tearing each other down.

 

[Ciunas Audio1]

No. The majority of this thread has focus on the highly questionable build quality. As long as you will not acknowledge that, people will have great difficulty in taking you seriously.

Well, there have been three different threads on Ciúnas DACs on this forum - two have been teardowns - one was of this DAC & one of another DAC
This thread is titled
Ciúnas DAC USB DAC Review

showing measurements & I'm addressing that
Was the criticism of the build quality not adequately addressed in the teardown thread?

 

[Wombat]

You mean breaking the deadlock by me answering questions & acceding to demands which arose after I pointed out the gross mistakes of this review? I believe the admissions & mistakes made initially & on which the whole review is based need to be corrected & addressed before anything can move on - this is the correct order in which matters get resolved. That is up to Amir

No point in you posting if you have nothing more to add but continuous repetition that is getting you nowhere.

It would be nice to know that you are confident enough to show the innards of current products, though.

 

[Ciunas Audio1]

No point in you posting if you have nothing more to add but continuous repetition that are getting you nowhere.

It would be nice to know that you are confident enough to show the innards of current products, though.

And you don't see the irony in what you say "No point in you posting if you have nothing more to add but continuous repetition"....."show the innards"

 

[Killingbeans]

Well, there have been three different threads on Ciúnas DACs on this forum - two have been teardowns - one was of this DAC & one of another DAC
This thread is titled
Ciúnas DAC USB DAC Review

Good point actually. No need to shout

 

[Xulonn]

Wrong Battery Type - video removed

LiFePO4 fire
Featured snippet from the web
The LiFePO4 batteries are the safest type of Lithium batteries as they will not overheat, and even if punctured they will not catch on fire. ... Due to the oxygen being bonded tightly to the molecule, there is no danger of the battery erupting into flames like there is with Lithium-Ion.

 

[Wombat]

And you don't see the irony in what you say "No point in you posting if you have nothing more to add but continuous repetition"....."show the innards"

Well then?

 

[Ciunas Audio1]

Good point actually. No need to shout

I didn't mean it as a shout - I just copied & pasted it from the title & that's the way it pasted - sorry about your ears

 

[garbulky]

Any proper businessman with common sense would respond professionally regardless of the treatment he is getting. I have been on the other side of this fence many times with my own products getting reviewed. You always act proper, kind and helpful. That way, you at least look good in front of your potential customers even if you can't turn around the reviewer.

Here, John's job was impossible anyway. The measurements are ruthlessly revealing of a poorly performing DAC. Construction of not one, but two showed the device to be unsafe, sold without legal certification putting aside all the dubious "audiophile ideas" stuffed in there with no verification.

Being an interactive forum, people are naturally outraged and indicated so. The treatment John is getting is factual based on his debating tactics, not answering simple questions, showing clear lack of understanding of electronics he is playing with etc. He needs to feel the pain as to do better, much better. Us rolling out a red carpet for him would cause him to continue doing the disservice to the audiophile community.

John's rude remarks have also broken our rules here for proper conduct. I could have banned him multiple times for that but have restrained.

Finally, remember, I am an advocate for consumers, not manufacturers. You want to do the latter, be my guest but don't ask me. The tested products here are so bad that no amount of outrage is enough to describe it. If there was a time to make the comment you are making, this is NOT it.

There's nothing wrong with being an advocate for consumers and not manufacturers. I think the practise of some of these magazines refusing to say anything negative about a peice of gear reviewed is horrendous and so ASR is a breath of fresh air. BUT.... there's definitely a way to go about it though. Your post boils down once again to "if he deserves it, so be it" to justify poor behavior.

You've said before that what matters is the measurements and the facts. It looks like there is a lot of feelings getting in the way whether it be a sense of "outrage" or the history you've had with him which - appears to have been pretty irritating. However, the facts will bear out in your favor everytime. Allowing a manufacturer to be a scratching post won't.
Let's examine. If you had talked with the manufacturer before (and bear with me it's possible that the manufacturer mayhave posted fake info)

You may have found
That it could be run on a battery ("supposedly" providing better reuslts).
The correct model.
The correct manual for the model. (The user may have printed out a different manual as he himself was not aware of what model it was.)
The power supply may have caused an issue - and you'd have found out that the manufacturer does not provide a power supply. And then you could point out that the manufacturer refuses to supply appropriate details on a "adequately clean" power supply.
Some feedback as to his layout and refusal to use a PCB.
And more importantly - a working unit - which you could compare to the broken one giving more data.
It would have taken a five minute email - maybe. Then when you post the negative review, you'd have more credibility.

Right now you have the manufacturer pointing things like you don't know the model or how to measure it and refusing to cooperate with you. Is it a fair accusation? I don't know but you have given him the ability to say these things.
If you had contacted him and then posted the negative review with points refuting his assertions, he would have less to complain about and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on when not wanting to cooperate. A quick email exchange - take five minutes.

 

[Xulonn]

Wrong Lithium battery type - video deleted

LiFePO4 fire
Featured snippet from the web
The LiFePO4 batteries are the safest type of Lithium batteries as they will not overheat, and even if punctured they will not catch on fire. ... Due to the oxygen being bonded tightly to the molecule, there is no danger of the battery erupting into flames like there is with Lithium-Ion.

 

[amirm]

This particular DAC measured is an old device, probably 5-7 years old (could be older - I would only know this if I knew the original buyer) - an older design called JKDAC not ISO-DAC

So I went back and searched for JKDAC and landed on your old website in your name. Here is the description of said DAC:

It clearly says there are two batteries in there. Yet there is only one battery in this reviewed unit as I have shown:

So it is not the DAC you are talking about. I have asked you for a link to the product description for this unit and you are refusing to provide. How is anyone supposed to know what this product is? It is so bad that it is even confusing you!

 

[garbulky]

In other words, Gearbulky, Amir didn't appreciate your honesty & unbiased post as it reflects badly on the forum & him

Don't get me wrong, your posts are also poor form. You are not answering clear questions on things like grounding, safety and providing what seems to be incorrect reasoning. You also haven't responded to questions about the soldiering or your reasoning about the PCB or about the wire that leads to nowhere. Even if the tone of the forum is negative I think these are reasonable questions.

 

[Killingbeans]

To be fair LiFePo4 and LiPo is not the same. They still need to be treated with respect though.

 

[Ciunas Audio1]

Another example of the lack of any care for accuracy in this supposedly objective & scientific review site- this is not a Lithium Ferrous Phosphate (LiFePO4) battery so why post it?

Some attempt at FUD?