Close

    • How do you punish car thieves trying to steal your BMW? With a Dubstep security system

      We hate car thieves and have absolutely no problem with extreme security systems that punish them when they attempt to steal a car. This one is a little bit different and leaves a bit of a mess but definitely teaches a lesson. Warning, if you are a bit squeamish or the sight of blood makes you woozy you might want to skip this video. You have been warned.



      This article was originally published in forum thread: How do you punish car thieves trying to steal your BMW? With a Dubstep security system started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 44 Comments
      1. nickr519's Avatar
        nickr519 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DBFIU Click here to enlarge
        The point was, just as my power might cut off for no reason due to some uneventful reason; your strings might just snap. Basically, yes i require electrical power for me to use my instrument but you require taught strings which can also break. So that makes the argument moot.

        I really don't think those things are equatable in any sense.


        Yes I do agree that there is a different skill required to actually play an instrument, there is no argument there on my behalf.



        Computer music production obviously doesnt require real time hand coordination, but since you are an electrical engineering student you should be able to understand the following concept.

        Say I were to record an acoustic instrument using a high end microphone, the acoustic instrument such as a guiter produces extremely irregular waveforms with many overtones (this is what gives the guitar a very rich sound).

        The microphone will capture all of this single, irregular wave. If you were to observe this wave using a typical spectrum analyzer, you would see peaks anywhere from 600 hz up to about 5k hz depending on what kind of guitar you use.
        You're talking about peaks in frequency? peak to peak distance you mean?
        This waveform that YOU produced with the stroke of your hand, is a unique waveform, it is not a sine wave, but a combination of a possible infinite number of sine waves. Sounds familiar? Fourier series, you probably know what that is.

        I can guarantee you, that with enough time and resources I can program my computer to produce a waveform that your ears will recognize instantly as a real live guitar. Which means, although I do not have the physical capability to produce that waveform, I broke down the acoustic signal using a combination of digital waves and produced your guitar sound almost perfectly.
        See this is the thing though, what you're doing is imitating the sound that I already make - one is real, and one is an attempted copy of the reality. That's like saying reading something on google books is the exact same as reading a real book because you absorb the same text - there's something fundamentally different, i.e. one is an imitation of the other. They aren't the "same" thing at all.
        At the end of the day we are both producing the same exact sound.

        Now there is no argument about the physical coordination aspect of creating the music, but I can almost prove to you that I can make any sound you can make on your guitar, and then some.



        I do play the didgeridoo almost professionally, for fun though. Circ breathing is very hard because it requires a lot of practice, the funny thing is some people get it RIGHT AWAY and some dont. I have sinus inflammation so i cant always circular breath, it has to be an allergy free day. Maybe ill post up some recordings of my didge skills Click here to enlarge

        I have terrible sinuses too Click here to enlarge $#@! sucks, I'd like to hear them if you have em.


        I will have to disagree here, and you should know why. A guitar can only produce acoustics in a 600 Hz to about 3k Hz range. That's pretty much it, unless you play a different guitar. Can you produce a 12kHz high E sharp on your guitar? No you cant, there is a physical limitation to your guitar by the amount of tension on the strings. I can hit 12kHz on my computer as a matter of fact I can go below and above the audible range with it.

        Lets not confuse range of sounds with 'timber'. You have an infinite number of tones and combinations you can make with your guitar, but you still are limited to a range due to the physical tension of the strings and shape of the guitar cavity.

        yeah I was using sound in the timber sense, obviously frequency is quite a different story. I'm not quite that stupid Click here to enlarge

        I guess I should have worded it differently, you have a limited range but you can produce unlimited waveforms or 'tones'. Basically, if you were pissed at your gf one day and stroked the guitar harder, you just created a brand new never heard before sound, but i guarantee you its still within the range of 600-3k Hz.
        right and so I could theoretically get a more capable computer than you that could produce a wider range of frequencies, human ear detection range aside. Does that make whatever I do on that machine better than what you do? I really am not seeing your point with this argument, or at least don't see that its really enough to overcome the lack of real time physical coordination, but I suppose that's purist personal opinion.
      1. bigup's Avatar
        bigup -
        Interesting thread, and interesting debate.

        I have to say, when it comes to music, I'm into pretty much 100% electronic music, always have been, and probably always will be. I am unable to get the same euphoric highs from more traditional music; in fact it usually hurts my ears when played at the same volume as electronic music. Electronic music, is one of the best drugs out there!

        For me, it has to have vocals though.
      1. Sorena's Avatar
        Sorena -
        Yeah, Electro FTW !

        Does anybody know something about Hang Drum ? saw someone talented was playing it yesterday and i really really liked that.
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nickr519 Click here to enlarge
        right and so I could theoretically get a more capable computer than you that could produce a wider range of frequencies, human ear detection range aside. Does that make whatever I do on that machine better than what you do? I really am not seeing your point with this argument, or at least don't see that its really enough to overcome the lack of real time physical coordination, but I suppose that's purist personal opinion.
        Well you cant really view it 100% in terms of computer performance, you need to recognize there is human ingenuity and talent involved with designing an 80 track song.

        Basically if I had a $#@!ty computer from 1991 and I was to produce a song back then, it would probably sound like $#@!; but after about 2000, computers and computer music was fast enough that there is no difference between machines unless you are using pro tools HD which is $75,000 for the console. In other words, no, a better computer nowadays will not buy you better skills, because you still need to know music theory; ability to compose and have good rhythm to be able to build a song from scratch.

        It is very difficult to compose a song with 40 or 50 different tracks. Remember, you have one guitar to worry about, but I have to worry about my lead guitar, my bassline, my sub line, the entire percussion set which includes kick drum, snare, low hat, high hat, cymbal etc.. etc.. and vocals etc... then it all has to be equalized or it will sound like $#@!. So creating a song from scratch on a computer is very very difficult and requires a lot of creativity. The only thing different between that and a guitar is I'm only programming the computer to make the sounds I want when I want, it's a lot harder then it sounds.
      1. dreikraft's Avatar
        dreikraft -
        i don't care if a track has 80 channels going or 12; the cut that conveys what i heard in my head more succinctly wins and that goes for analog vs digital as well.
        fyi, some electronic artists perform in realtime ( i.e. booka shade ) and some of their live cuts are better than some of their studio edits ( booka shade - analog feel). also, no one (or hardly anyone) recording live instruments is putting forth a product without mastering/editing it through some kinda of DAW. the argument that someone utilizing classic live instruments in realtime is extrapolating something 'more pure' in the experience than some who just made a song with their keyboard and mouse is a puritan and therefor trying to convince them otherwise is futile. in my opinion, i don't care if you can reproduce the sound on the fly (its more entertaining if you can for live play) but not necessary to produce a better track. that being said, and as a producer who heavily relies on sampling i disagree that you can reproduce certain organic sounds digitally to the point where the two are identical. which is why i shy away from producing my own basslines, drum kits, etc as much as possible because i've always found sampling original recordings gives me the texture and feel that synths couldn't even come close to. its all about getting that track to sound as close as possible to the sound you heard in your head. or maybe it starts off that way and it evolves into something better, who knows. all i know is as soon as you assume your method is superior and you stick to that formula you've limited yourself.
        i'm currently getting $#@! from other djs because i don't use a DVS (i.e. serato etc) exclusively and have combined it with running a DAW (ableton) simultaneously in order for me to recreate live what i do in the studio. these 'live sets' have prerecorded crap in certain channels, open midi channels for drum/basslines OTF and then the usual 2/4 channel DVS for juggling turntables and maybe even a MPC on occasion...gotta stay flexible guys


        ps - this was a cool vid, i guess i'm the only one bummed out that this debate spawned and detracted from it.
      1. nickr519's Avatar
        nickr519 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dreikraft Click here to enlarge
        i don't care if a track has 80 channels going or 12; the cut that conveys what i heard in my head more succinctly wins and that goes for analog vs digital as well.
        fyi, some electronic artists perform in realtime ( i.e. booka shade ) and some of their live cuts are better than some of their studio edits ( booka shade - analog feel). also, no one (or hardly anyone) recording live instruments is putting forth a product without mastering/editing it through some kinda of DAW. the argument that someone utilizing classic live instruments in realtime is extrapolating something 'more pure' in the experience than some who just made a song with their keyboard and mouse is a puritan and therefor trying to convince them otherwise is futile. in my opinion, i don't care if you can reproduce the sound on the fly (its more entertaining if you can for live play) but not necessary to produce a better track. that being said, and as a producer who heavily relies on sampling i disagree that you can reproduce certain organic sounds digitally to the point where the two are identical. which is why i shy away from producing my own basslines, drum kits, etc as much as possible because i've always found sampling original recordings gives me the texture and feel that synths couldn't even come close to. its all about getting that track to sound as close as possible to the sound you heard in your head. or maybe it starts off that way and it evolves into something better, who knows. all i know is as soon as you assume your method is superior and you stick to that formula you've limited yourself.
        i'm currently getting $#@! from other djs because i don't use a DVS (i.e. serato etc) exclusively and have combined it with running a DAW (ableton) simultaneously in order for me to recreate live what i do in the studio. these 'live sets' have prerecorded crap in certain channels, open midi channels for drum/basslines OTF and then the usual 2/4 channel DVS for juggling turntables and maybe even a MPC on occasion...gotta stay flexible guys


        ps - this was a cool vid, i guess i'm the only one bummed out that this debate spawned and detracted from it.
        I don't think the debate detracted from it, I enjoy having discussions about music with people who have differing opinions than mine, hopefully DBFIU enjoyed it as much as I did. While I don't really think I'm a "purist" in any real sense of music (protip: I'm 19 years old), you can't really argue against the innate difference between what I an DBFIU do, that's all I was looking to point out, aside from the over-repetition that plagues this song and most of the electronic music on the market today. Obviously I see more value in what I do and he in what he does, and that's that. Just because 99% of BMW "enthusiasts" (I use that word losely) get asspained about people not having their exact same views on a subject doesn't mean normal people who have nothing to compensate for have that level of maturity as well Click here to enlarge

        It's funny because I usually can't stand dubstep but I actually enjoyed the two minutes of this track the first 2 times I listened to it.
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dreikraft Click here to enlarge
        that being said, and as a producer who heavily relies on sampling i disagree that you can reproduce certain organic sounds digitally to the point where the two are identical. which is why i shy away from producing my own basslines, drum kits, etc as much as possible because i've always found sampling original recordings gives me the texture and feel that synths couldn't even come close to. its all about getting that track to sound as close as possible to the sound you heard in your head. or maybe it starts off that way and it evolves into something better, who knows. all i know is as soon as you assume your method is superior and you stick to that formula you've limited yourself.
        There is an algorithm that was developed very recently that mimics the piano so well that people cannot tell the difference. Signal processing has become so advanced that computers are able to reproduce sounds 99.9% identical to what you would hear from an acoustic sample. Than being said, you should reconsider having to use 'live samples only'. Although that's what I do, I am also genuinely curious on how the algorithm functions and fascinated by the fact that man can recreate natural sounds using computers.

        I'll post up the link to that, gotta find the company that does this.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dreikraft Click here to enlarge
        ps - this was a cool vid, i guess i'm the only one bummed out that this debate spawned and detracted from it.
        i dont think the debate detracted from it, I enjoyed the conversation.
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        Found it,

        http://www.pianoteq.com/

        Listen to a couple tracks of this piano, tell that doesnt sound real!
      1. nickr519's Avatar
        nickr519 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DBFIU Click here to enlarge
        Found it,

        http://www.pianoteq.com/

        Listen to a couple tracks of this piano, tell that doesnt sound real!
        Let me ask you this - if humans came out with a female robot, that had an absolutely identical feeling vagina, identically acting in bed, same sounds, same feel, everything - would you $#@! it? Click here to enlarge While music and sex are certainly apples and oranges, that is probably the best way I can describe my feelings about that.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dreikraft Click here to enlarge
        ps - this was a cool vid, i guess i'm the only one bummed out that this debate spawned and detracted from it.
        Why consider it a detraction? There is only so much to the vid, this discussion is far more complex.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nickr519 Click here to enlarge
        Let me ask you this - if humans came out with a female robot, that had an absolutely identical feeling vagina, identically acting in bed, same sounds, same feel, everything - would you $#@! it?
        Could you turn it on and off and does it also cook and clean? If so, I wouldn't just $#@! it I would marry it.
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Could you turn it on and off and does it also cook and clean? If so, I wouldn't just $#@! it I would marry it.

        THIS!

        Click here to enlarge
      1. nickr519's Avatar
        nickr519 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Could you turn it on and off and does it also cook and clean? If so, I wouldn't just $#@! it I would marry it.
        well I suppose this is when I would depart from both of your views in a "purist" fashion Click here to enlarge
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nickr519 Click here to enlarge
        well I suppose this is when I would depart from both of your views in a "purist" fashion Click here to enlarge
        hahahaha hey man if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, maybe it wants to $#@!.. i dunno, cyber robot women are sexy especially if they're from Saturn nahmean?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nickr519 Click here to enlarge
        well I suppose this is when I would depart from both of your views in a "purist" fashion Click here to enlarge
        I'd call that evolution...
      1. nickr519's Avatar
        nickr519 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'd call that evolution...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
      1. nickr519's Avatar
        nickr519 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DBFIU Click here to enlarge
        hahahaha hey man if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, maybe it wants to $#@!.. i dunno, cyber robot women are sexy especially if they're from Saturn nahmean?
        Unfortunately I don't, I quit doing psychedelics in high school Click here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nickr519 Click here to enlarge
        No part on hot robot women, add it.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Looks like this weeks Southpark may be perfect for this thread:

        <div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:385881" width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e07-youre-getting-old">You're Getting Old</a></b><br/>Tags: <a style="display: block; position: relative; top: -1.33em; float: right; font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: none" href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">SOUTH<br/>PARK</a><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/characters/stan-marsh">Stan Marsh</a>,<a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/characters/randy-marsh">Randy Marsh</a>,<a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s15e07-youre-getting-old">more...</a></p></div></div>
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        ^^ hahahaha love that clip...