[nmatheis]

Been listening to this on my X5: LINK.

Give it a shot if you like EDM

 

[JaZZ]

Been listening to this on my X5: LINK.

Give it a shot if you like EDM

 
Thanks for the link! I just had a brief listen – and I like it.

 

[AudioBear]

+1 Thanks

 

[Chris J]

I often use my X5 in the car, and my car has never sounded better. I've been taking lots of moderate to long trips lately, as I have a kid who's doing the college shopping tour, and fortunately he likes a lot of my music.

I've never got along well with Sirius XM. Compressed digital crap. The only argument for it is variety.

It makes your car sound better, or makes your car stereo sound better?

 

[Unfie]

It makes your car sound better, or makes your car stereo sound better?

It would be hilarious if the X5 improved engine sound quality too.

 

[JaZZ]

  It would be hilarious if the X5 improved engine sound quality too.

 
It's not really impossible and actually some manufacturers do exactly this – trim the engine sound to a more sportive characteristic by means of amps and speakers.
 
I'm sure George (Skerry) has an idea how to DIY this with the X5.

 

[nmatheis]

No problem, guys. The same artist (Ruxpin) has some more music on Bandcamp with reasonable pricing to feed your X5

I like the label (N5MD). It started as a minidisc-only label. Unfortunately right after it started, minidisc production was discontinued. I have several of their releases in minidisc format. Ahh, the good old days...

 

[AudioBear]

   
It's not really impossible and actually some manufacturers do exactly this – trim the engine sound to a more sportive characteristic by means of amps and speakers.
 
I'm sure George (Skerry) has an idea how to DIY this with the X5.

A growing number of cars use sound augmentation and noise cancellation through an audio system.  I have an Audi diesel which has a lackluster Bose audio system.  I always wondered why a more premium brand like Audi chose Bose for audio.  I concluded that their expertise in sound shaping and cancellation has a lot to do with it.  They do of course offer a B&O upgrade for $US 6K which I declined.  The X5 LO is about the best source for the car's audio system except for fooling it into playing DVDs with full resolution PCM files.  Most cars are basically MP3 players.  Sort of makes sense given the noisy environment and distractions like watching the road.....

 

[Dobrescu George]

Been listening to this on my X5: LINK.

Give it a shot if you like EDM

 

   
Thanks for the link! I just had a brief listen – and I like it.

For EDM i rather recommend reflection, frogacult, deerob, corona, vertex, more trance-like which is leaned more to EDM.
 
I can understand how this can be fun, but it falls rather into the category of industrial dance music IDM, breackcore, breaks, ambient, and electro, for which i can also name a few good ones, and this is also a good one!
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
George, if you like to do it, more power to you! I propose to mix a 14 and a 30 kHz tone plus a 20 and a 42 kHz tone in a 176.4 or 192 kHz wave file and make a screenshot of the resulting curve. Then downconvert it to 44.1 kHz and make a screenshots again. Additionally send it through the FiiO X5's line out and sample it with 176.4 or 192 kHz to see what the anti-aliasing filter does to it. You may get more striking results with other tone combinations, so feel free to try whatever comes to mind, just take care that at least one of the sine waves is ultrasonic.

I cannot really produce ultrasonic tones.
 
But thank you so much, @JaZZ
 
I really discovered something quite amazing today.
 
For this experimend, i had recorded some sine waves, and some sine +22khz, but both the recorded sine and sine +22khz resulted in a sqare wave, maybe because i used full volume.
 
I need further equipment for recording. 
 
But i can give you a clue, for having the ideea with tones, because i am a nice guy, and i will need help for my project, and the project would not exist if i was not here to begin with.
 
It matters, and in some time, if i succed, you will see how. for now, all results must remain within project.
 
Also, about ultrasonics, i hate to kill it, but they are excluded from the recording phase, most microphones cannot record much above 20Khz, and no studio will ever release a 192 or 384, with ultrasonics still there. And it is for the better, no equipment without a low pass filter does exist in reality, even if ultrasonics would remain, they are filtered by most stages, when i tried creating one, they were filtered out on the instant of trying to import the file, the tone is empty, if i try to work with ultrasonics.

 

[Dobrescu George]

 
 
this is how a 1khz and 10 khz tone looks like, in sine mode.

 

[AudioBear]

Really good point about mics and ultrasonic filters.  Perhaps that's part of why when I did spectral analysis of recorded files there was an nothing much beyond 12-15KHz.  This sort of makes one wonder about the need for equipment that reproduces ultrasonics.
 
Perhaps the impact of ultrasonics on the audible range frequencies during the recording process will produce modulation that ends up being recorded.  The other source of ultrasonics and ultrasonic frequency impact on normal audible frequencies are the algorithms and filters used in the DAC.  That topic has been and continues to be discussed to death on DAC and Sound Science threads.
 
Can you explain more fully what is represented in the 1 and 10KHz graph? I see the shapes in the 10KHz are significantly distorted.  Have you determined if these shapes sound any different to us than an ideal 10KHz waveform?

 

[nmatheis]

For EDM i rather recommend reflection, frogacult, deerob, corona, vertex, more trance-like which is leaned more to EDM.

I can understand how this can be fun, but it falls rather into the category of industrial dance metal IDM, breackcore, breaks, ambient, and electro, for which i can also name a few good ones, and this is also a good one!

All I read there is blah, blah, jargon, semantics :wink_face:

 

[Kokomo O]

   
George, if you like to do it, more power to you! I propose to mix a 20 and a 30 kHz tone plus a 20 and a 42 kHz tone in a 176.4 or 192 kHz wave file and make a screenshot of the resulting curve. Then downconvert it to 44.1 kHz and make a screenshots again. Additionally send it through the FiiO X5's line out and sample it with 176.4 or 192 kHz to see what the anti-aliasing filter does to it. You may get more striking results with other tone combinations, so feel free to try whatever comes to mind, just take care that at least one of the sine waves is ultrasonic.

I have generally decided to stay out of these debates, but I thought I'd stick my nose in just to provide plots of what the interference patterns JaZZ is suggesting you sample would look like. Of course, sampled at 44.1kHz, they'll just look like pure sine waves. But sampled at the higher sampling rates, either 176.4 or 192kHz, they should look like this, in the case of the 20kHz + 30kHz tones, and this, in the case of the 20kHz + 42kHz tones.
 
To make it even more interesting, and more real world, suppose the base frequency is one that will be audible to all of us, say A=440Hz, and the harmonic that will be cut out by a 16/44 recording but captured by a 24/192 recording is its 100th harmonic 44,000Hz. Suppose further that you have realistic 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th harmonics included, and included in realistic proportions, as well. Then the plot should look like this for the 24/192 recording, but this for the 16/44. Close, but not exactly the same. Will they sound the same? Hard to know, but I tend to think not.

 

[Dobrescu George]

  Really good point about mics and ultrasonic filters.  Perhaps that's part of why when I did spectral analysis of recorded files there was an nothing much beyond 12-15KHz.  This sort of makes one wonder about the need for equipment that reproduces ultrasonics.
 
Perhaps the impact of ultrasonics on the audible range frequencies during the recording process will produce modulation that ends up being recorded.  The other source of ultrasonics and ultrasonic frequency impact on normal audible frequencies are the algorithms and filters used in the DAC.  That topic has been and continues to be discussed to death on DAC and Sound Science threads.
 
Can you explain more fully what is represented in the 1 and 10KHz graph? I see the shapes in the 10KHz are significantly distorted.  Have you determined if these shapes sound any different to us than an ideal 10KHz waveform?

this is the IDEAL 10Khz sine that exists at 44.1 Khz sampling rate. this is why hi res sounds better. The jagged edges are exactly how it is interpolated in linear fashion, by DACs. 
 
The discussion is pointless, there is no data in ultrasonic that affects music, because even though in real life the air also moves at these frequencies, as long as eardrum does not move, it is useless to try to record and reproduce them. Basically, in real life, Nth order of harmonics created by ultrasonics still does not affect under 20khz sound. okay, it affects, but where it is still audible, for example you have a signal at 90DB.
if the ultrasonic is created at 85DB [it is going to not be as loud] and is at 28khz
then say it's 4-5-6 order subharmonics are situatied at around 65-60 DB, where they could be audible, but barely, considering the original signal of 90DB. 
these harmonics, should affect above 18khz frequencies. 
So no, what you hear is not really affected.
 
 
Maybe if you have 20-25khz real loud information, it can go and affect until around 12khz audible data, which would be bad, but if this would happen, low pass filtering is done to prevent hearing loss, and to make that exact sound audbile.
 
It has been discussed a few pages ago that usual cymbals sound very abbrasive.
 
do no worry, in my project i had taken into accound what ultrasonics could do to sound. I can hear up to 19Khz, tested with my sine wave generator, signal gone through x5 and through fiio e12a to ultrasone dj one pro. my project should not be affected by such errors.
 
 
 
 

All I read there is blah, blah, jargon, semantics

I do not want to be non-friendly, but, there is a lot of difference. I keep very very good track of these stuff to be able to fiind similar bands.
 
At least, knowing that it is IDM more than EDM, industrial dance music, rather than electro dance music, makes a lot of difference. 
 
corrected my post writting industrial dance metal, it is industrial dance music.
 
I know that for many such categories are not helpfull, but for me they are, as i keep track of what i listen to and it is extremely easy for me to get new similar bands. Also easier as i tend to add more than 100 bands per month to my collection. i also usually loose around 20 bands per month, due to not liking anymore.
 
For example, you might also like how C2C sounds like, but you will not like how fracture 4 sounds like.
 
But as i said, if you hate labelling, it is better, you will have a easier time accepting new bands that are within a say blacklabelled type of music for you.
 
 
 
 

  I have generally decided to stay out of these debates, but I thought I'd stick my nose in just to provide plots of what the interference patterns JaZZ is suggesting you sample would look like. Of course, sampled at 44.1kHz, they'll just look like pure sine waves. But sampled at the higher sampling rates, either 176.4 or 192kHz, they should look like this, in the case of the 20kHz + 30kHz tones, and this, in the case of the 20kHz + 42kHz tones.
 
To make it even more interesting, and more real world, suppose the base frequency is one that will be audible to all of us, say A=440Hz, and the harmonic that will be cut out by a 16/44 recording but captured by a 24/192 recording is its 100th harmonic 44,000Hz. Suppose further that you have realistic 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th harmonics included, and included in realistic proportions, as well. Then the plot should look like this for the 24/192 recording, but this for the 16/44. Close, but not exactly the same. Will they sound the same? Hard to know, but I tend to think not.

Your calculations will always result in sqare waves or form of sqare because you considered all sines at clipping point in 0DB, which is never true for a recording.ultrasonics will always have a much lower volume, if captured by microphones.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
But also, i open this question, if this is so, wouldn't a microphone capture anyways the harmonics caused by ultrasonics? i mean, if they cause harmonics audible, microphonoes capture everything that is audible, so we get those things anyways. If we would include ultrasonics, we would get louder harmonics, which would be actually noise of some kind, no?

 

[uzi2]

  But also, i open this question, if this is so, wouldn't a microphone capture anyways the harmonics caused by ultrasonics? i mean, if they cause harmonics audible, microphonoes capture everything that is audible, so we get those things anyways. If we would include ultrasonics, we would get louder harmonics, which would be actually noise of some kind, no?

Good point - now can we move on?