Dankpods and I Gave Money to Criminals

[AdamFromLTT]

 

Around every corner, it feels like people are trying to scam you out of your money. But no one tries harder than audio companies. No I'm not talking about, Apple, Sony, Sennheiser or Samsung. I'm not even talking about hi-fi audio companies like Marantz, Bang and Olufson or Adam Audio. I'm talking about the shady companies that exist in the world of audiophile tweaks. The companies that use science-y sounding words to rip you off. So we got our audio afficionado friend Dankpods to come over and join us while we take a look at some of the craziest BS we've ever seen on this channel.
 

[darknessblade]

Would love a part 2 or 3 of this

[manikyath]

so.. besides the obvious placebo that is this entire product segment, i do have a thought about the last one, that emits the frequency...

 

i actually went to dig up wikipedia on this, and if i'm not reading this wrong.. the energy from 7Hz is 1 millionth the power of GSM bands.

or to put it differently, the electricity running trough your wall produces a field that's an order of magnitude stronger than what this thing outputs.

[swimtome]

I know Dankpods was supposed to be the main feature, but there is nothing like watching Dan slowly die inside...

[GoStormPlays]

Two LTT collabs with DankPods in one week?! It truly is the Christmas season.

[kokosnh]

fun fact, I do use a real USB power isolator, when testing with fnb48 usb tester, or when charging 14500 USB li-ion (as it's limits the current to around 0.2A).  

But for audio, I just use toslink as I did have a problem when I was connected by USB to my PC on some devices (just the static, probably the real hi-end audio, have it all better isolated). 

[Anfros]

Dunking on audiophile nonsense will never not be funny. The music industry is full of various bullshit and superstitions.

[atxcyclist]

I love watching these manufacturers getting called-out, when I put together my two-channel setup years ago I needed chest-waders to get through all the BS around audio equipment. It has to be one of the most scam-heavy industries out there.

[Normand_Nadon]

I have been kicked-out of an online audiophile group because I called-out that kind of rip-off stuff... These guys were buying 1000$ power cords made from off-the-shelf cheap components.

At the time, I thought Audiophiles were really knowledgeable (some are, but few) then I realized they were just victims of scams!

 

And don't get me started on flat cables... This is the most idiotic thing to buy! If you want to cancel interference, you need to twist cables together, not run them flat and in parallel like a perfect antenna! And maybe think about using shielded cables!

 

They kicked me out when I started mentioning that the laws of physics apply to everything, even audio products!
Around the same time I was arguing with a guy that paid 100 000$ for an amplifier, and added a 12 000$ line filter to his circuit to "filter the bad A/C signal".
At first I thought it was a fancy inverter, but not even so....
1- We live in Canada, where A/C current is regulated and is more precise than what most AC/DC/AC device can deliver.

2- Why the hell can't the power stage of your 100 000$ amp filter the AC noise? what is in that stupid thing? I mean, a 150$ Computer PSU can deliver 1 000 Watts of ultra-clean DC power! How can a 100 000$ not be able to do the same?

Edit: Proof of my claims on crazy A/C power cords prices...

[themrsbusta]

I had a dream, a dream that Linus put Wade and Mehdi from Electroboom on the same building... But this will never gonna happen, right guys?

 

[Normand_Nadon]

12 minutes ago, themrsbusta said:

I had a dream, a dream that Linus put Wade and Mehdi from Electroboom on the same building... But this will never gonna happen, right guys?

such goodness is too much to handle for humankind! It cannot be achieved! 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

I expected Walk Through the Park, not Crab Rave.

[dogwitch]

1 hour ago, Normand_Nadon said:

I have been kicked-out of an online audiophile group because I called-out that kind of rip-off stuff... These guys were buying 1000$ power cords made from off-the-shelf cheap components.

At the time, I thought Audiophiles were really knowledgeable (some are, but few) then I realized they were just victims of scams!

 

And don't get me started on flat cables... This is the most idiotic thing to buy! If you want to cancel interference, you need to twist cables together, not run them flat and in parallel like a perfect antenna! And maybe think about using shielded cables!

 

They kicked me out when I started mentioning that the laws of physics apply to everything, even audio products!
Around the same time I was arguing with a guy that paid 100 000$ for an amplifier, and added a 12 000$ line filter to his circuit to "filter the bad A/C signal".
At first I thought it was a fancy inverter, but not even so....
1- We live in Canada, where A/C current is regulated and is more precise than what most AC/DC/AC device can deliver.

2- Why the hell can't the power stage of your 100 000$ amp filter the AC noise? what is in that stupid thing? I mean, a 150$ Computer PSU can deliver 1 000 Watts of ultra-clean DC power! How can a 100 000$ not be able to do the same?

Edit: Proof of my claims on crazy A/C power cords prices...

i got kick off of ps5 sub on reddit for a few months.

for calling out the bs on ps5 ssd is the fastest in the world and still is post.

 

[CoolJosh3k]

@7:47 Now I am no expect in the math, but wouldn’t a digital source have so many samples, that inaccuracy from jitter still produces the exact same analogue result?

 

I don’t know enough about how digital to analogue works, but I feel like if a sample is taken too soon or too late, from jitter, that due to some law, discovered by some scientist, means it has to vary by a whole lot to produce a different outcome?

 

[Thaldor]

39 minutes ago, CoolJosh3k said:

@7:47 Now I am no expect in the math, but wouldn’t a digital source have so many samples, that inaccuracy from jitter still produces the exact same analogue result?

 

I don’t know enough about how digital to analogue works, but I feel like if a sample is taken too soon or too late, from jitter, that due to some law, discovered by some scientist, means it has to vary by a whole lot to produce a different outcome?

 

Jitter more often is caused by bad DAC, like real bad. Like your typical recording standard is 24-bit 48kHz (or 44.1kHz, rarely anything higher since handling the raw files is PIA), that is 48,000 samples per second, the middle A in piano is typically 440hz so the sound wave happens 440 times per second, that ends up you have around 110 samples per one wave. If your clock is few hertzes off, it doesn't mean anything, especially when you count in that you're taking 24-bit sample, like a bit there or bit here doesn't matter that much. Even less if we go into the audiophile category that insists using 32-bit samples at 96 or even 192kHz rates (yeah, sorry guys, very few studios handle that high digital audio, just because it's PIA and there's really no return to the investment).

 

You will be more likely to hear the tiny scratches from few times listened LP record (the usual wear, no damages) than a bit off clock in ADC or DAC.
Thing is different if the clock is unstable and way a lot off, but then your whole signal line is F'ed up and there's a lot bigger problems than the sound wave not being exactly as the original analog.

[CoolJosh3k]

39 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Jitter more often is caused by bad DAC, like real bad. Like your typical recording standard is 24-bit 48kHz (or 44.1kHz, rarely anything higher since handling the raw files is PIA), that is 48,000 samples per second, the middle A in piano is typically 440hz so the sound wave happens 440 times per second, that ends up you have around 110 samples per one wave. If your clock is few hertzes off, it doesn't mean anything, especially when you count in that you're taking 24-bit sample, like a bit there or bit here doesn't matter that much. Even less if we go into the audiophile category that insists using 32-bit samples at 96 or even 192kHz rates (yeah, sorry guys, very few studios handle that high digital audio, just because it's PIA and there's really no return to the investment).

 

You will be more likely to hear the tiny scratches from few times listened LP record (the usual wear, no damages) than a bit off clock in ADC or DAC.
Thing is different if the clock is unstable and way a lot off, but then your whole signal line is F'ed up and there's a lot bigger problems than the sound wave not being exactly as the original analog.

Sounds like you know more than me.

 

I wonder if LTT should be doing a video correction for this?

 

I believe there is plenty of coverage on how digital to analogue works around the place, like @12:39 of this video I recall and checked just now, which alone makes me think you’d need serious amounts of jitter to make any difference at all: 

 

 

[CoolJosh3k]

So I got interested enough to find the source they showed: https://hifigo.com/blogs/guide/what-is-digital-jitter-and-how-to-avoid-jitter-dac-101-part-3

 

Now I think LTT might have goofed in what they said.

 

Some things about that source:

 

* “Basically, sometimes a sound that’s really really high in frequency like a cymbal shimmer, harmonic, or other high note will have this strange warbling or oscillating sound that wasn’t in the original recording. What’s happening is that the DAC is accidentally creating a lower frequency note because the signal is just close enough in frequency to the sample rate—of the samples are taken at inaccurate times by an older, crappier clock mechanism.” - If the note was close to the sample rate, yet within the limit of human hearing (20kHz) and you’d have other issues to worry about.

 

* Then there is this: “How do you avoid Jitter? Increase the sample rate, of course! … Essentially, you can eliminate this issue if you’re able to sample at least twice per period, thereby forcing sampling errors to exist only in the highest frequencies that you’d likely be unable to hear anyway. Considering that the uppermost limits of human hearing range from 12-22kHz, doubling that rate nets you somewhere within 24-44 thousand samples per second, or 44kHz.” So they already know the expected minimum sample rate already fixed it.

 

So LTT said jitter was actually a thing, while displaying an article explaining how it isn’t a thing??? Maybe they just meant very, very old hardware before CDs were a thing?

 

Maybe someone who knows more can weigh in?

[Slizzo]

Yeah, they said in the video that it definitely used to be a thing, but largely isn't anymore.

[VoidX]

One of my best sources for a good laugh is posting videos like this on audiophile forums and reading how they cope with their purchases with a rage that lasts for days. To restore it for more days, just ask them "why?".

[Freakwise]

I definitely want to know how much is the profit margin for each of those "companies" 

 

 And i feel like there's no way they don't throw small party each time some idiot bought anything from them

[Thaldor]

3 hours ago, CoolJosh3k said:

-snip-

Jitter is something that happened when we were talking about 8-bit depth and quite a lot in 16-bit depth time with low sample rates. Bit depth plays in as the accuracy of the sample so 8-bit gives you 255 values per sample, if you're like 5 values off it is noticeable difference, but with 24-bit depth you have 16 million possible values per sample, if you're even 100 values off it's miniscule difference in sound. Does it show on oscilloscope? Yeah, but oscilloscope will show that your $20k per piece speakers are also "turds" because they are only 99.9999% identical with their frequency responses. Is it meaningful? Making 100% identical speakers is impossible, everyone just gets close enough that it's practically identical and call it a day, after all even the most finest listener won't notice if there's like 0.001% difference between a stereo pair in responses.

Also we are talking about differences in fractions of singular sound waves. That piano note you hear isn't one wave but frequency amount per second distorted waves. If the algorithm gets 1/10th of waves tiny bit wrong the other 9 will mask that mistake.

And then we have that humans can hear 24kHz in optimal situations and some super hearers can hear all the way to 28kHz. BUT, those are singular signal tests and in very optimal environment with constant signal and just right volume. Good luck hearing something like even 20Hz difference in above 15kHz frequencies of a music piece because your DAC has "jittering" problem.

[geo3]

Sorry but this video was as dumb as the products they "tested". It was nothing more that a bunch of bros on a couch talking shit. Like you used cable risers on powered monitors? WTF? I hate snake oil as much as the next guy, but you could at least try. 

 

Use things as intended. Take measurements. Do blind listening tests. Like hello? you guy's have a lab now.  It expect professional from an organization your size. This was armature hour of the highest order. 

[Normand_Nadon]

3 minutes ago, geo3 said:

Sorry but this video was as dumb as the products they "tested". It was nothing more that a bunch of bros on a couch talking shit. Like you used cable risers on powered monitors? WTF? I hate snake oil as much as the next guy, but you could at least try. 

 

Use things as intended. Take measurements. Do blind listening tests. Like hello? you guy's have a lab now.  It expect professional from an organization your size. This was armature hour of the highest order. 

Honestly, at some point, the products they were showing were real jokes!
Ok, you want to test real equipment, in real test scenario, but this none-sense?... It does not deserve to be taken seriously! 

As I said previously, the trend in "audiophile" speaker cables is to use flat, parallel cables "to eliminate interference and distortion"... That is stupid! You just created 12 foot long antennas! Of course you will ear a difference when they are not touching the ground... because they were bad (super expensive) speaker cables to begin with and were creating capacitance with the ground!

I am talking about those stupid Wires... These would be worthy of a real test IMO to prove that they are freaking antennas and catch all the RF noise in the room!

[geo3]

7 hours ago, Normand_Nadon said:

Ok, you want to test real equipment, in real test scenario, but this none-sense?... It does not deserve to be taken seriously! 

Then it doesn't deserve a video in the first place. 

 

7 hours ago, Normand_Nadon said:

the trend in "audiophile" speaker cables is to use flat, parallel cables "to eliminate interference and distortion"...

No the point of flat cables is to manipulate capacitance and inductance. Weather or not that's audible is sus, but should at least be tested properly.  EMI doesn't matter on a speaker cable, it's current dominated.  Voltage dominant carriers like Interconnects is where you want to eliminate EMI, but a simple balanced cable would handle that perfectly. 

[Normand_Nadon]

Putting two insulated conductors, pumping high current with varying frequencies, in parallel, makes them a capacitor... which is one of the thing they claim to reduce... (capacitance)
Then the more you read, the more they claim! RF elimination, Inductance shenanigan (it is not a coil! it is a straight wire and the setup acts like a capacitor, not an inductor... The speaker is the inductor in the system!!!)
But in the end, the point is that when you use reasonably good quality, adequate gauge conductors and good shielding techniques, you can get way better performance than what you get from those 5000$ cables!