[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

**To**:**Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com****From**:**a k butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>****Subject**:**Re:sampling frequency****Date**:**Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:52:51 +0000**

>Although you might be correct for a frequency of f >when the sampling frequency is 2f, the theorem correctly stated says >that it will be good for frquencies UP TO f Hz, i.e. not including f. as its not an integer measurement then "up to" and "up to and including" mean the same in real terms > So while you're correct for one frequency, f, the theorem holds > 100% true for all frequencies below f and no information is lost. Ok, let's take it through slowly, sample a 22kHz signal at 44.1kHz the result is identical to sampling a 22.05kHz tone which is amplitude modulated at 500Hz agree? (if no, then try working it out on paper) and there are other signals (with FM and AM) which would produce the same result when sampled so how can we be sure and re-create 22kHz? We can't, that's a classic case of loss of information. > The mathematics bear out. The mathematics is based on an assumption zero information loss in a fourier transform, where the signal is periodically repeating at a known frequency, and the sampling frequency is picked to be a whole multiple of that periodic frequency. ...but audio is non-periodic and of unknown frequency. so the maths doesn't bear out your claim. i.e. information loss increases as you approach the Nyquist frequency. andy butler

**Follow-Ups**:- Re: sampling frequency
*From:*Tom Combs <tncombs@gmail.com>

- Re: sampling frequency

- Prev by Date: Re: Line 6 Dl4 mod
- Next by Date: Re: Rocktron All Access
- Previous by Thread: AW: GypsiMIDI Controller... - and lowcost alternatives
- Next by Thread: Re: sampling frequency
- Index(es):