[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaGWiRE "but its lacks the resolution and transparency suitable for headphones above $100." How many $100+ headphones have you tried the amp part with? Only whats in your signature? I ask because although I am looking at a 2.0, I am still curious about the 1.3.

I only have SR225, K501 and K1000.
For comparison I routed Zhaolu's signal to Central Station to compare to Central Station's amp.
The most revealing experience I had was using Chesky's "Hot Club of 52nd Street." This CD is a live recording in a club with the audience applauding, with a lively ambience that is 2die4. K501 has great ambience and big 2D soundstage in L/R, U/D directions (little depth). Driven by Zhaolu's headphone jack the soundstage collapsed into 1D (L/R) and ambience is decimated. This is a sign of lacking midrange low-level resolution, if you ask me.
Zhaolu's headphone jack is still better than the after-thought jacks I have encountered on receivers, CDPs, CD-Roms, consumer soundcards, etc. Considering Zhaolu's low price, it does not deserve much criticism. Only because it was said to be a giant killer did I put it's heapdhone amp under such scrutiny.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerWilco It comes from the factory set to 192k.The consensus is that 192k sounds better.It is my Preference also.

D1.3 uses CS8414 receiver chip (according to Zhaolu website in China), which only supports 96 kHz.
Where does the 192 kHZ come from?

Also, in the back, there are two RCA jacks labeled (in Chinese) "headphone in" and "sound out." Stuart said both can be used for output. But I only used the one that said "sound out." Is there really a "headphone in"?

 

[325xi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth Nice write up Ferbose. Very clear, concise and easy to understand....like the DAC1. I've a DAC1 and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th best it suits me just fine. I've not let ownership affect my opinion on how it performs versus competitors and have read with interest and amusement the DAC1-Lavry-Zhaolu threads, believing at different times that one or the other or the other is better. Lavry seems the best from a democratic POV, the majority opinion. Curiosity piqued by these dac threads had me head out to listen to a number of CDP's in the $2,000-$5,000 range (I was also auditioning subs and speakers) and I returned home quite content with the DAC1 and a view of where diminishing returns are. It does what is important according to my priorities. It keeps lines very clear with even mucky material, it's well proportioned top to bottom, it's very good at macro dynamics with full range speakers played loud. I like my music to be really big. A dac for headphones? I've no opinion. Much like the amp and speakers I hear it through, if things aren't well it's the quality of the software that's at fault, (but go well deep enough into transparency country and there's always good things to be pulled out of the dirt). I'll probably upgrade in one, two, three or four years.

Oh, that's difficult. I'd be very interested to know what was wrong in Lavry comparing to DAC1, so you ended up with the latter?

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325xi Oh, that's difficult. I'd be very interested to know what was wrong in Lavry comparing to DAC1, so you ended up with the latter?

A lot of lavry and dac1 comparisons exist, go search the forums, theres probably been 3-4 people if not more who have already created threads on them.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325xi Oh, that's difficult. I'd be very interested to know what was wrong in Lavry comparing to DAC1, so you ended up with the latter?

I bought DAC1 two years ago. Never knew about Lavry back then.
I talked to Benchmark's rep at Streophile's Home Entertainment Show 2006, and mentioned some people think Lavry Black sounds better.
He said they would probably get one and compare/measure.
He also said Lavry is kind of a few-person operation but Mr. Lavry is a very shrewd audio designer.
I heard Lavry DA10 briefly at a meet A/B against my DAC1 and I liked Lavry as well. Lavry's volume control is a pain to use, though.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose I never opened the Zhaolu, since I am reserved to open up borrowed equipment. s.a.b. (Stuart) told me there are two jumper settings, 96 kHz, and 192 kHz. He said it is set at 96 kHz, but I know D1.3 has no 192 kHZ mode, so I am confused. Stuart should be able to clarify this point, but whatever he set it at is his preferred setting.

I would get permission first also to change it. I just wonder what your impressions about it are that's all. Your experiences and hearing are different than mine maybe and it's just curiosity on my part in wondering what you think about things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerWilco It comes from the factory set to 192k.The consensus is that 192k sounds better.It is my Preference also.

I didn't know there was a consensus. If there was one for "192K" I would not be a part of that as I prefer the lower one.

 

[RogerWilco]

Most people that posted about this have preferred the 192k setting.Keep in mind this may vary if a person is using there computer as a transport.It just goes to show you we all hear different.

I have heard the dac1 on a system that was way more highend than mine.It did not have the imaging and depth i get with the 1.3

I only trust my ears

 

[Sean H]

Thanks for the review! It takes a lot of time pulling that together. I heard a DAC 1 for the first time a few months ago and I have to say I too have completely different impressions than you have. In general, to me it was bright and sounded very flat to my ears. The Zhaolu to me is much more dimensional and musical. It handily beat my Ack! dAck 2.0 as well which I let go some time ago. But we all have different ears, tastes and systems though, so thanks again!

 

[Sean H]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan I didn't know there was a consensus. If there was one for "192K" I would not be a part of that as I prefer the lower one.

Seems like there was some posts there where many preferred the 192 setting but there were others, including myself, who definitely preferred the lower 96 setting.

 

[zdogg]

I agree with lan and find the 48/96khz setting to be much better IMHO (see my original post/pictures here http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showt...96#post2012717)

 

[RogerWilco]

It looks like on the 2.0 they no longer offer the 96k setting.But with the 1.3 i preferred the 192k setting using a dvd player as transport.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerWilco Most people that posted about this have preferred the 192k setting.Keep in mind this may vary if a person is using there computer as a transport.It just goes to show you we all hear different.

You guys are confusing me.
Where is the 192 kHz mode if the receiver chip does not support one?
(No one would answer this question for me)

[size=x-large]Stop[/size]

Someone clarify for me where the heck does 192 kHz come from.
Are we into some audio voodoo by talking about functions that don't even physically exist?

Well my DAC1 also sound better than yours because I found a secret jumper to convert it to 2.82 GHz, 48-bit floating point mode...ha ha...

 

[lan]

on the PCB there are those # printed by the jumpers. It's just a label not an actual relation to it fuctioning at 192khz.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan on the PCB there are those # printed by the jumpers. It's just a label not an actual relation to it fuctioning at 192khz.

So no one even knows what the jumper is supposed to do and we just go around blindly debating its sonic character? What if it is a distortion injector? Why not just pull out a few capacitors or op-amps and see if the DAC will will sound better?

From one of the earliest Zhaolu thread it is said to be a 24/192 DAC from China, which it is not, and never was. So much misinformation about the Zhaolu is promoted ad lib around here. The whole 192 kHz business (labeled on the outside of some units, printed on PCB) is clearly an intentionally misleading advertisement by Zhaolu electronics in China, a common practice in audio industry over there. And when I finally got my hands on it to do A/B and found (to my ears) it is not the giant killer it is supposed to be, people ask me: "have you tried the phantom 192 kHZ mode that does not even physically exist? It sounds better... blah blah blah."

Now that Zhaolu 2.0 is out, the FOTM complex will only escalate...

 

[Zoobies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose So no one even knows what the jumper is supposed to do and we just go around blindly debating its sonic character? What if it is a distortion injector? Why not just pull out a few capacitors or op-amps and see if the DAC will will sound better? From one of the earliest Zhaolu thread it is said to be a 24/192 DAC from China, which it is not, and never was. So much misinformation about the Zhaolu is promoted ad lib around here. The whole 192 kHz business (labeled on the outside of some units, printed on PCB) is clearly an intentionally misleading advertisement by Zhaolu electronics in China, a common practice in audio industry over there. And when I finally got my hands on it to do A/B and found (to my ears) it is not the giant killer it is supposed to be, people ask me: "have you tried the phantom 192 kHZ mode that does not even physically exist? It sounds better... blah blah blah." Now that Zhaolu 2.0 is out, the FOTM complex will only escalate...

Yes, it's a distortion injector. What other straw-men can we beat up on?