home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.audio
- Path: sparky!uunet!walter!porthos!hera!gfl
- From: gfl@herahera.cc.bellcore.com (lenahan,grant f)
- Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
- Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:42:01 GMT
- Message-ID: <1993Jan21.134201.8201@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
- Summary: wrong frequency
- References: <1993Jan20.211233.37643@watson.ibm.com>
- Sender: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software)
- Lines: 31
-
- (Cevin M Zellers) writes:
- > I recently witnessed another case of the analog sentimentalist trying
- > to use the 'sampling' argument to lodge a complaint against Digital.
- >
- > critics are pressing this argument and misleading the public, due to their
- > ignorance of the Nyquist Sampling theorem. All of you digital skeptics,
- > please note that CD's capture ALL frequencies up to 44.5 KHz, reproducing
- > them faithfully (butter than vinyl, I argue). Frequencies above 44.5 KHz
- > don't matter, that's far above the threshold of hearing anyway :)
-
- Right and wrong.
-
- The sampling rate itself is very likely adequate, because it captures
- all freqs up to 22.05 kHz (44.1 / 2). Actually, it is all _below_
- 22.05 kHz, if you think carefully (not inclusive).
-
- The only valid criticism is that by making the theoretical limit
- only 10% more than the generally accepted hearing limit of 20 kHz,
- filter design is made more difficult, and limits choices to higher
- order (generally less phase correct) re-construction filter
- designs. "Oversampling" (still hate the term Max :-)), raises
- the out of band noise by the OS multiple, and somewhat alleviates
- this limitation.
-
- Of course, there are still many implementation problems with
- this youngish technology, especially at $200-400 consumer levels,
- and acceptance of the theorey does not imply perfect products.
-
- Grant
-
-
-