there is an interesting post of @romaz on WBF:
"The concept behind an endpoint was to mask the noise generated by a noisy upstream server or NAS and so the general belief has been that the endpoint should be a low noise device suggesting once again a low power CPU. When I first discovered the sound quality benefits of a server with a high power CPU, I continued to use my endpoints that housed a low power CPU including such things as a NUC, uRendu, and sMS-200ultra Neo. As I improved the quality of my high power server, I found that these endpoints were no longer necessary and in fact, became detrimental as they significantly hindered dynamics and shrunk the sound stage. It became clear to me that the endpoint needed to be equivalent to the server in order to avoid this and Pink Faun obviously agrees since they are marketing a dual 2.16X solution. With the Extreme having dual CPUs and with each CPU having its own independent bank of memory, you have the capacity for the same distribution of tasks but housed in a single chassis which is really quite elegant. In Emile's testing, he indicated this distribution between 2 CPUs sounded better than a single CPU having at least 20 cores."
Did you come across a similar situation where a direct connection to a HQ server is superior to the additional use of an endpoint like the Allo?