The Douk Audio 108 clones actually sound quite good. I'm not sure which current clones are comparable. The high priced clones look remarkably similar inside, but I would not pay that much for a clone.
Well now... 400$ Mark Levinson amp new...
29 responses Add your response
the transistors and traces don’t know whose name is on the front panelThat’s true, but if you want a clone closest to the level of component / construction it won’t be cheap! https://nl.aliexpress.com/item/Study-Copy-Dartzeel-NHB108-Deluxe-Version-power-amplifier-HIFI-NO-Neg... |
I don't believe I'd trust any of these clones to be anything like the originals. I have trouble putting much trust in a place, capitalizing on cheep labor and renowned for junk tools and poison dog food. For my money, I'll opt. for the real deal - even if I'd have to pick it up used, from a trusted source...Jim |
My understanding is that they copied the original board design and the only changes made was to make the bandstand on end to make this layout in the small case. As far as the Dartzeel, I looked very hard at these clones and almost pulled the trigger. Again, a basic amp design cop on the main output boards on this amp. The innards look very different than the original and I have seen 3 different boards on Dartzeel clones. |
The member who owns the Dartzeel clone goes by jaynewt. He replaced MBL 9008A amps with it and is driving a pair of MBL 101-D’s. Here is his system: https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/5351 FYI I spoke with someone not long ago who had heard both the Dartzeel and the Douk Audio clone side by side and he said while the clone wasn’t as good it came surprisingly close. |
i can't address this particular clone, but from my experience with high-end headphones you should not underestimate the resourcefulness and genius of these chifi manufacturers--i've heard dirt-cheap knockoffs of expensive sennheiser, shure, etc. which are just as good as, and in some cases, better than the real thing. |
Looks like they did a pretty good job of copying the Mark Levinson logo. The similarities end just about there, of course. For example the ML-2 was a monoblock, while the supposed clone is a stereo amp. Each ML-2 monoblock weighed 65 pounds (130 pounds for a stereo pair); this stereo amp weighs 40 pounds. This stereo amp is also much smaller than a single ML-2 monoblock. I suspect that a diminutive 1980s Carver M400t cube amp (the "t" version of the M400 having been designed to emulate the "transfer function" of the ML-2, i.e., the relation between its output and input) would come a good deal closer to emulating its sonics. I owned an M400t many years ago, and it sounded surprisingly good, at least with the easy to drive speakers I was using. Its predecessor model M400a, which was not "transfer function modified," sounded very poor though. Regards, -- Al |